Ask HN: Anyone a social entrepreneur, i.e. placing social impact above profit?

So large. A gulf. Maybe you misread the question?

Out of morbid curiosity - who do you believe is funding the breakup of the nuclear family? Where are you getting this from?

And I'll bet you $10 that you are American - in no other country in the world is "tech companies want to dismantle the nuclear family" a somewhat common belief. Except maybe Saudi Arabia and some other "theocracies".

We started when a friend asked if we could help get masks to homeless in LA, and our friends from TOMs and Bombas inspired us to use the 1 for 1 model.

We are currently in a friends and family launch and in talks for retail distribution.

Our first goal is to provide 300,000 masks a month to LA county.

My HN friends can visit to order (3 packs = free shipping): Http://Smiiles.com/anthony

Also check us out on IG @givesmiiles

- Partners include LA County Department of Health, Flowspace, Flexport and Webflow.

Here's a blog post that lists some VCs actively investing in impact tech: https://medium.com/@IFI/the-what-why-who-and-how-of-impact-t...

The issue I saw was many companies were claiming to be eco-conscious with planting trees but behind the scenes their product was harmful and their tree planting was merely donating ~$1 from $70+ items. Currently Treets continues to plant more trees than it costs to operate and I'll continue to run it so long as that holds true.

My cofounder Daniel and I viewed it as direct political action through entrepreneurship. In particular we wanted to protest Swedish surveillance legislation (FRA), which is partly why we chose a Swedish name for the service.

So far we have refused at least five serious offers of investment and acquisition, because we would rather retain control, even if that meant slow growth or obscurity.

As time went by the company grew and so did our capabilities to affect change. So far we have reinvested all profit in things we believe move the needle in the right direction. Some are direct donations, others are pure investments, others should probably be classified as "high-risk bets that might make things better, but not necessarily for us".

The fact that we retain 100% ownership in the company enables us to engage in strategic behavior that is unavailable to competitors who accept outside investment. All VCs have investment horizons. If we invited one onboard they would eventually want us to sell, or commit to handing out dividends.

We'd rather build some kind of institution. Even better if we can obsolete VPN services as a concept. Then we could move on to other problems. It's not like there's a shortage. We have explored the idea of moving our shares to a foundation. Unfortunately that is an action that can't be undone. It's kind of the point, but by retaining the shares we retain maximum strategic flexibility.

Edit: I don't identify as a social entrepreneur, but thought you might enjoy the story anyway, as we're also sort of optimizing for impact. Whatever that means.