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

101–110 of 134 posts

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#101

Post by chrisseaton »

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…

> The less powerful nonprofits have no choice but to take such money.

Why can't they just say no if it's a not useful to them? How do the donors force them to take the money? I can't donate money to you and tell you to spend it on something - you'd just tell me to get lost.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#102

Post by kodablah »

simias wrote: post #98
koolba wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.…

> The rich decides what needs funding while the poor, well, they do poor people stuff I suppose.

Taken out of context, it would be hard to know whether this is a criticism of the public sector or private.

> 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.

Taken at face value, believing that this is how it works realistically is quite similar to the impractical beliefs of pure, staunch libertarians.

Not that I take one side or the other, because I reside in the middle, but surely you can understand why people think governments are worse at things, waste more, and actually give individuals less control over where their dollars are spent.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#103

Post by tgb »

shaki-dora wrote: post #92
tgb wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, pe…

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that "costless/riskless" is part of the "actual" definition? That's what your first post said, but this one citing Wikipedia appears to suggest you think that is misusing the term in a pejorative sense. Though, in fact, that quoted you pulled form Wikipedia is from the same source that I cited in my previous post as an author claiming they invented the term at least 5 years after it was already in use. So I'm not sure we should take it to be at all definitive.

Either way, I think you can use this idea pejoratively with or without that part of the definition: Dropbox says they support the community and these stated values, they drop some money on it and go back to doing whatever else they were doing that ignores these values. That's "signalling virtues" (by some definition) that you don't actually live by, except when it suits you to signal them.

(Note, I don't know enough about Dropbox to say that they are not actually living by these virtues.)

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#104

Post by vlunkr »

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...

I don't know if this is what you're trying to say exactly, but I get tired of the mentality that "they only give to charity for the tax incentives." The govt has these incentives in place to encourage charity, that's a good thing, yet the armchair critics love to criticize people for using them, because they aren't being fully altruistic or something. Were taxes part of reason for creating the foundation? Probably. But it still exists and does real work. Overall this is a win for everyone. Dropbox continues to offer a good product, this foundation gets to exist, and money goes to them instead of the govt where it's restricted by all sorts bureaucracy.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#105

Post by frabbit »

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 think it's a useful shorthand to indicate that someone/some entity is making too big a fuss about actions for which they intend to garner approbation. I especially like using it as it has become irritatingly common as a criticism currently, but usually deployed by those who see themselves attacking some nebulous left/liberal opponents.

I don't think your definition or objection is correct.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#106

Post by overeater »

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...

I feel like there's so many of these foundations, but how are the people doing the research able to keep track of and apply to them all? It would take a growing amount of time to find, read the requirements, prepare application materials, and submit the applications for each one. So just by existing, each additional foundation decreases the amount of actual work or research time for the non-profits. I'm seeing more and more non-profits hiring armies of grants managers who basically just seek out and contact then apply for foundation grants. Especially those working in "social change".

I would like to see these foundations "consolidate", and streamline their grants offering and application processes.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#107

Post by privacypoller »

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.

It's pretty hard to put your foundation or key donor's name on "janitorial operating budget for 2018-2020"

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#108

Post by privacypoller »

overeater wrote: post #106
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...

I feel like there's so many of these foundations, but how are the people doing the research able to keep track of and apply to them all? It would take a growing amount of time to find, read the requirements, prepare application materials, and submit the applications for each one. So just by existing, each additional foundation decreases the amount of actual work or research time for the non-profits. I'm seeing more a…

You're right - there's a huge business in rent-takers who's role is connecting charitable organizations with these foundations and helping them get funding. Pretty similar to those streamlining government programs.

It's surprising (and a little depressing) how much money goes to for-profit in the funding cycles of "not for profits"...

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#109

Post by mmjaa »

fiatjaf wrote: post #74
mmjaa wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dropbox should've been a feature of the operating system, but it isn't, because OS vendors have convinced themselves there's nothing left to do since the Internet is just going to solve all the hard problems now. Seriously, I rue the day someone decided not to build-in such features as Internet-wide file sharing into my operating system, giving me full control over my content - subjugating me, instead, to the whims o…

Dropbox is a company that hosts your files. If it was a feature of the operating system, who would host the files?

There are no good reasons I couldn't host my own files, with my own bandwidth, on my perfectly cromulant server/mobile device.

The only issue is, it hasn't been considered of any importance to maintain user agency; better we steal the users agency over their data/computers, put it out 'in the cloud', and get them addicted/dependent on third parties, than to make the operating system deliver similar levels of service, at scale, at the local level.

What if, instead of getting all hot and bothered about browsers, OS-teams instead focused on making source-/locality-/ownership- of user-generated data, within the context of the local machine, available at scale?

Like, gimme IPFS open and operating by default, in my regular distro, and I'll never have to host a site on a cloud server again...

Todays computers/bandwidth/connectivity can handle the load.

Re: The Dropbox Foundation

#110

Post by mediaman »

chrisseaton wrote: post #101
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…

> The less powerful nonprofits have no choice but to take such money. Why can't they just say no if it's a not useful to them? How do the donors force them to take the money? I can't donate money to you and tell you to spend it on something - you'd just tell me to get lost.

But it's tough when much of the available grants of size are restricted. Sure, you could just shut down the nonprofit due to lack of funds.

But sitting in the nonprofit's shoes, when that grant is what you need to stay alive, and is related to your mission, but doesn't reflect your priorities within that mission, you're still going to take it unless you want to lay everyone off and move on. And many nonprofits are in that position.

Post reply on HN