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

91–100 of 134 posts

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#91

Post by gurkendoktor »

rocqua wrote: post #52
gurkendoktor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words: she's frequently wrong, but she's not batshit crazy and filled with hate like the current administration. Is it really better if an intelligent person willingly helps start the Iraq war than if an hateful person does so on a whim? I find it hard to decide what's scarier. I've stopped using Dropbox when they hired her, but not because I think there are practical implications for users. Rather, I wish…

Yes, it is a lot better if an intelligent person willingly helps start that war. Intelligent people tend to be rational; they can be reasoned with. This means you might be able to convince them to change their mind. You can talk with them and figure out what is going on. You can explain to them why you disagree with their actions. The real distinction that matters is how stubborn someone is, or how convinced they are…

Good point about stubbornness, but rationality is not the same as benevolence. You can have rational, even entertaining discussions about the way in which you ruin things for your own self-interest.

I have a hard time believing that anyone in the Bush administration was acting in good faith and invaded a country because nobody raised a solid counter-argument in time.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#92

Post by shaki-dora »

tgb wrote: post #90
shaki-dora wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 th…

The usage here clearly refers to what Wikipedia calls "Pejorative Usage"[0]. The clearest definition there is "public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitude without any associated risk or sacrifice". This does not apply, because the $20 million are clearly an "associated sacrifice".

The Dropbox Foundation does better fit the traditional definition in signalling theory, i. e. "costly rituals, performed publicly, as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment.". But OP did not intend to use that definition, clearly shown by their term "cynical virtue signalling".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling#Pejorative_u...

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#93

Post by throwawayyx96 »

staticelf wrote: post #63

> For the past 10 years, we’ve seen the impact our products can have when they free up our time to focus on work that truly matters. Medical researchers share data sets to develop vaccines. Musicians compose scores. Aid workers access and coordinate information from the field. Is it just me that think this is very cringy and reminds me of https://youtu.be/J-GVd_HLlps?t=31s I like that they help fund stuff but I just…

Dropbox following the tried and true path of taking credit for tangentially "enabling" the contributions of others. Kind of reminiscent of Apple's statements about the massive impact of their company on the economy and job creation in other industries.

Heck, as long as the bar is this low, Microsoft could write a similar sounding PR statement to put some lipstick on their file system patent trolling - "At Microsoft, we have an unwavering commitment to the fight against poverty. Our storage technology has been crucial to the success of the one laptop per child program."

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#94

Post by rocqua »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #91
rocqua wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is a lot better if an intelligent person willingly helps start that war. Intelligent people tend to be rational; they can be reasoned with. This means you might be able to convince them to change their mind. You can talk with them and figure out what is going on. You can explain to them why you disagree with their actions. The real distinction that matters is how stubborn someone is, or how convinced they are…

Good point about stubbornness, but rationality is not the same as benevolence. You can have rational, even entertaining discussions about the way in which you ruin things for your own self-interest. I have a hard time believing that anyone in the Bush administration was acting in good faith and invaded a country because nobody raised a solid counter-argument in time.

Even people acting out of self-interest can be reasoned or at least bargained with. You can't do that with a 'true believer'.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#95

Post by simias »

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.

It's true but I'd prefer my money to go to my democratically elected government in the form of taxes rather than some multinational company operating from an other continent. If on top of that said company wants to donate money to charitable causes then be my guest, but it should be on top, not instead.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#96

Post by ende »

simias wrote: post #95
montrose wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's true but I'd prefer my money to go to my democratically elected government in the form of taxes rather than some multinational company operating from an other continent. If on top of that said company wants to donate money to charitable causes then be my guest, but it should be on top, not instead.

Well fortunately for you, companies don’t collect taxes.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#97

Post by vinay427 »

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…

Many US universities seem to be major offenders (or victims, I suppose). There are far too many buildings being renovated or entirely replaced that are already one of the newer buildings on campus, and they're of course named after some donor.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#98

Post by simias »

koolba wrote: post #59
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...

> 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". Not really. It depends on what you think taxes should be paying for. If you think they should cover essential services that can't be taken care of by the private sector (ex: roads, police, national defense) then l…

>It removes the particularly heinous problem of government officials spending the public's money on things the public doesn't actually want them to spend it on.

That's actually a good thing in my book. Sometimes the right thing is not the easy or popular one. "Let's cut education spending and increase everybody's salaries instead" would probably be very popular but it might not prove very beneficial in the long term. If you dislike the way the government spends money then you elect a different one. If you don't manage to do that then maybe "the public" doesn't disagree so strongly with the way the money is spent.

More generally if you move this to the private sector then the problem is that you effectively weaken democracy. The rich decides what needs funding while the poor, well, they do poor people stuff I suppose.

If you look at modern western societies the rich already have significantly more power than the average citizen (through lobbying, campaign funding etc...). Do you think that's a positive thing? Do you think we should cut the middle man and let them handle everything directly? Instead of complaining that my government doesn't spend money the way I want to I'll get to complain that Mark Zukerberg and Bill Gates don't spend money the way I want to? How is that a better proposition? Can I vote Bill Gates out? Do I have to become a Dropbox shareholder if I want homeless shelters to be funded?

I'll admit that libertarianism in general baffles me. Many of its proponent seems very clever people, many certainly more clever than I am, yet when I discuss with them I feel like I'm talking with somebody from bizarro-earth. "Finance and banking are out of control, let's deregulate it completely!", "Governments are corrupt, let's give the power directly to the ones doing the corrupting!", "It's getting cold, let's get naked!"

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#99

Post by nerdponx »

vinay427 wrote: post #97
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…

Many US universities seem to be major offenders (or victims, I suppose). There are far too many buildings being renovated or entirely replaced that are already one of the newer buildings on campus, and they're of course named after some donor.

This happened at my alma mater. I stopped donating.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#100

Post by montrose »

lozenge wrote: post #82
montrose wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's true; nor are donations a sufficient substitute for taxes.
Post reply on HN