> I don't understand why we always assume bad faith. I wish more companies were like Cloudflare actually - trying to balance the need of revenues while trying to do good for internet and open source as a whole.

This is quite simple and history bears it out: you can't rely on a for-profit corporation to operate in any other manner than optimizing shareholder value.

When VC money is flowing, you see things that look like (or even can be) altruism - but when the belts tighten and waste is eliminated these endeavors need to align with the company's goals.

Therefore, look for what Cloudflare is "buying" in this transaction. I suggest they probably want the PR win as it distracts from their objective of locking down the web, and it's worth the expenditure to them.

▲

boxed 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> This is quite simple and history bears it out: you can't rely on a for-profit corporation to operate in any other manner than optimizing shareholder value.

You can't even do that honestly. Look at Boeing. It got taken over by know-nothing managers that followed that religion of shareholder value, and what did it do? Destroy shareholder value!

I think we should instead say "we can't rely on any institution to be stable over time". That's a much more sane statement imo.

▲

nerdponx 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

They are kind of different statements.

For-profit institutions will almost always act in the interest of profit for the people who have an ownership stake and a claim to the prophet stream. That's definitionally why they exist, and we have enough evidence from the history of everything ever to assume that they will for the most part act that way.

You are saying something different. You are pointing out that the people making decisions aren't necessarily good at making those decisions. Or maybe the incentive structure is set up such that the people making the decisions do not share the goal of profit with the company, and so decide according to what's best for them, which might or might not be what's best for the profit objective.

The instability of institutions in general is yet a third characteristic.

▲

boxed 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> For-profit institutions will almost always act in the interest of profit for the people who have an ownership stake and a claim to the [profit] stream.

But they won't. This statement is a declaration of faith/religion, not a statement of fact. It's a common belief, but that doesn't make it true.

	▲	nerdponx 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's a matter of historical fact. When has this not been the case. Can you think of any serious examples? Everyone everywhere all the time is just responding to the incentives in their environment. "Make a lot of money" is a very very powerful incentive. There are exceptions all over the place where businesses don't act like robber barons, sure. Take for example Market Basket up here in New England, where the CEO for years and years resisted raising prices and tried to treat workers well, in the interest of maintaining a long-term positive image and being a sustainable element of the region's economy. But guess what: he was just forced out for not being greedy enough. Lots of people seem to be expecting a private equity takeover soon.

▲

immibis 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> prophet stream

!!!

▲

overfeed 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The actual metric management maximizes management remuneration, which is dependent on short-term shareholder value.

Startups nominally care more about the long view, as they need to convince investors that they high long-term value and have to act accordingly. As companies grow from VC-funded, to fast-growing public, then to well-established public company, the culture shifts to match dominant shareholder expectations.

▲

l___l 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you can't rely on a for-profit corporation to operate in any other manner than optimizing shareholder value.

I would like to understand where this breaks down. Would a for-profit individual be more reliable? Would a non-profit? At which point does quality deteriorate?

▲

didibus 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) are a way to try and solve that problem.

I recently switched to Kagi and their Orion browser, and that's when I learned about PBCs.

A PBC legally takes a triple mandate, the first is just as any for-profit corp, to maximize shareholder value, the second is to the benefit of the stakeholders, and the last can be anything they write down when they register as a PBC. The Delaware law says:

> The board of directors shall manage or direct the business and affairs of the public benefit corporation in a manner that balances the stockholders’ pecuniary interests, the best interests of those materially affected by the corporation’s conduct, and the specific public benefit or public benefits identified in its certificate of incorporation.

If they fail at any of these mandates, you can sue them.

That means they are still for-profit, but also can't decide to favor profit over their other mandate or change their mind. Their other mandate being stakeholders interests, like users, as well as the explicitly stated benefit. For Kagi, that benefit is:

> Kagi is committed to creating a more human-centric and sustainable web that benefits individuals, communities, and society as a whole, with a transparent business model that aligns the incentives of everyone involved.

Now it's not all roses, Anthropic I learned is another PBC. Their benefit is:

> the responsible development and maintenance of advanced AI for the long-term benefit of humanity

Which is quite vague, and can be taken in many directions.

But overall, it's much better than normal corporations, because here they are legally obligated to care about stockholder, stakeholder, and some additionally specific "public benefit".

▲

dcreater 4 days ago | parent [-]

> A PBC legally takes a triple mandate

where are you getting this? PBC has no actual legal aspect to it at all - its all self reporting and self adherence. PBC is more marketing/signalling than legal requirements

▲

didibus 4 days ago | parent [-]

I was taking it from here: https://delcode.delaware.gov/title8/c001/sc15/

But IANAL. I am just learning about this, so I'm curious, if you know more than I do, please share.

	▲	dcreater 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		From my interpretation (which I think would match that of an attorney at the PBC): 1) Legally Enforceable: periodic self reporting of public benefit related activities 2) Not legally enforceable: the detailed scope and actual delivery/implementation of said benefits. Third party auditing i.e. if you try going and suing OpenAI, Anthropic etc. on their stated public benefit contradicting the severe impact datacenters are having to water/electricity in some areas, im quite certain that you would lose.

▲

philipallstar 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> This is quite simple and history bears it out: you can't rely on a for-profit corporation to operate in any other manner than optimizing shareholder value.

This is like saying that history bears out that you can't rely on governments to do anything but prepare for war and then send you out to die in one.

▲

delusional 4 days ago | parent [-]

That's ahistoric. Democratic governments are correlated with a _decrease_ in violent conflict.

	▲	pessimizer 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		No they are not. DPT is just about "democratic" government having conflicts with each other. They find it difficult because they are economically intertwined. They have no such problem preying on other countries, often in cooperation.