Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Dropbox Foundation

dropbox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 134 posts

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#81

Post by lozenge »

ktpsns wrote: post #31

A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The actually intended way is called "paxing taxes". Dropbox, like a good part of the US tech companies, has it's European site in Ireland, a country known for its low tax rates [1]. [1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator...

Dropbox is an online company. They were never going to pay taxes in more than one European country. Unless we want to start charging taxes on IP packet ingress, that is.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#82

Post by lozenge »

montrose wrote: post #60
ktpsns wrote: post #31

A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The actually intended way is called "paxing taxes". Dropbox, like a good part of the US tech companies, has it's European site in Ireland, a country known for its low tax rates [1]. [1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator...

It is a big mistake to think that merely paying taxes is a sufficient substitute for donations. Governments are like the biggest of big companies: they tend to be very conservative about what they'll fund. Individual donors and small foundations play a crucial role in funding the sort of risky outliers that new ideas come from.

There is also something to say for the continuous, reliable stream of spending that is permitted by taxes. The world can't run on risky outliers alone.

Actually, it's exactly the reliability of SS/medicare/etc that make people take it for granted and give it less attention than its dollar value would suggest. People can plan for it to be around in 20 years which can't be said for charity schemes.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#83

Post by claudius »

montrose wrote: post #60
ktpsns wrote: post #31

A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The actually intended way is called "paxing taxes". Dropbox, like a good part of the US tech companies, has it's European site in Ireland, a country known for its low tax rates [1]. [1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator...

It is a big mistake to think that merely paying taxes is a sufficient substitute for donations. Governments are like the biggest of big companies: they tend to be very conservative about what they'll fund. Individual donors and small foundations play a crucial role in funding the sort of risky outliers that new ideas come from.

While individual donors and foundations may play some role or another, nearly all risky outliers with new ideas are funded by taxes, not random individuals. The number of private research institutes is extremely limited (in particular in Europe, slightly less so in the US). Once ideas are less risky to pursue, industry is very happy to adapt and fund them, but the initial kickstart is nearly always paid for by public money.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#84

Post by VMG »

smackay wrote: post #2

Open Question: What's the consensus of opinion regarding Dropbox while they still have Condoleezza Rice on the Board of Directors? Personally, I want to love them. I think Drew has built up a decent company. However choosing Dr. Rice for the board, although she probably brings a lot to the table, was an unforgivable act. The creation of the foundation is laudable but feels a bit of a band-aid to solving their image p…

There is no consensus opinion. The anti-war movement died with Obama's election. Since the consensus is that Trump worst president ever, actual crimes of previous administrations are irrelevant. Calling a country a shithole is worse than waging war against it, apparently.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#85

Post by shaki-dora »

frabbit wrote: post #79
mful wrote: post #54

> A big part of our mission has always been helping our users achieve their missions. Do these types of PR lines from companies that make productivity tools actually resonate with folks? At Dropbox’s scale, they probably materially increase economic productivity, which is great. Why push some narrative about helping aid workers achieve their mission? This sort of language seems especially strange to me when announcin…

> Do these types of PR lines from companies that make productivity tools actually resonate with folks? In the case of Dropbox, for me, it comes across as cynical virtue signalling. If Dropbox were funding the EFF or the FSF or even dropping some funding to CCC or FOSDEM then I could start to overlook their ties with the sort of people¹ that create clients for Warchild. As it is this stuff comes across as pretty horri…

"Virtue Signalling" was a stupid concept to begin with.[0]

But if you insist on using it, at least use it according to its actual meaning: proclaiming some supposed virtue without costs.

In this case, it doesn't apply because they are, actually, spending $20 million.

[0]: Because it's a cheap way to disparage anyone, cynically using the perceived virtue of their stated opinion against them.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#86

Post by usrusr »

mful wrote: post #54

> A big part of our mission has always been helping our users achieve their missions. Do these types of PR lines from companies that make productivity tools actually resonate with folks? At Dropbox’s scale, they probably materially increase economic productivity, which is great. Why push some narrative about helping aid workers achieve their mission? This sort of language seems especially strange to me when announcin…

Are those mission statements even aimed at consumers? I've come to see them more like legal safety nets for when investors complain (and potentially sue) about some high level decisions that could be seen as benefiting the users more than the investors: "It's in the mission statement, that's what you signed up for when you have us that money".

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#87

Post by shaki-dora »

lozenge wrote: post #81
ktpsns wrote: post #31

A foundation with 20M$ and these ambitious goals is a gift for the society. However, it is also the typical American way of company-society interaction. The actually intended way is called "paxing taxes". Dropbox, like a good part of the US tech companies, has it's European site in Ireland, a country known for its low tax rates [1]. [1] https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator...

Dropbox is an online company. They were never going to pay taxes in more than one European country. Unless we want to start charging taxes on IP packet ingress, that is.

You can simply start charging taxes based on money ingress, which I believe has actually happened in regards to VAT?

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#88

Post by rocqua »

matt4077 wrote: post #66
rocqua wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't a public company. If they were, this might indeed cause some activist investors to take measures that might include lawsuits.

They obviously do have shareholders, though. And I doubt that they got explicit consent from every single employee that owns shares or options, and every single investor. I've also never seen the argument made with explicit reference to publicly traded corporations only. They also filed for IPO in January. I doubt that they will shut down the Foundation a few months after announcing it when they go public.

There is less of a chance of activist funds buying up your stock when you aren't public. This lessens the effect of activist investors.

Most shareholders don't care about the 'Do everything to make me money short term'. Some activist investors do. Those are easier to keep out if you are a private company.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#89

Post by dayaz36 »

montrose wrote: post #58

It is huge that they give unrestricted grants. I've been involved in the nonprofit world a lot in the last few years, and the most surprising thing I've learned is how depressingly common restricted grants are. Restricted grants are when you give money to a nonprofit to do what you want, rather than what they want. Usually this is some highly visible thing that the donor can then claim credit for. These projects are…

This is exactly what's happening with Khan Academy. Not only they get restricted grants from Google but Eric Schmidt (among others) is on their board directly influencing the direction of the organization

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#90

Post by tgb »

shaki-dora wrote: post #85
frabbit wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do these types of PR lines from companies that make productivity tools actually resonate with folks? In the case of Dropbox, for me, it comes across as cynical virtue signalling. If Dropbox were funding the EFF or the FSF or even dropping some funding to CCC or FOSDEM then I could start to overlook their ties with the sort of people¹ that create clients for Warchild. As it is this stuff comes across as pretty horri…

"Virtue Signalling" was a stupid concept to begin with.[0] But if you insist on using it, at least use it according to its actual meaning : proclaiming some supposed virtue without costs. In this case, it doesn't apply because they are, actually, spending $20 million. [0]: Because it's a cheap way to disparage anyone, cynically using the perceived virtue of their stated opinion against them.

I doubt that's a widely accepted definition of it - I see it in [1] but there the author claims to have coined the term in 2015 even though it clearly predates that. However, the idea of signalling theory strongly includes the idea of costly signals, the obvious example being the peacock's feathers. I can't imagine that wouldn't be what a large part of what people mean when they say "virtue signalling" even though they do mean it by "signalling" in a broader context.

[1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/i-invented-virtue-signal...

Post reply on HN