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

Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

blog.ecosia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 227 posts

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#181

Post by culi »

jksflkjl3jk3 wrote: post #55
andy12_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because ad revenue can be used for the non-profit? Ecosia's whole thing is that when you use it, you indirectly help plant trees - "the search engine that plants trees".

Do they disclose what percentage of their revenue is donated? If it's just a token amount, then I'd rather not support a marketing gimmick and would prefer to just donate directly to an organization focused on trees. If it's a significant amount, then it seems unlikely that they'll be able to compete with for-profit alternatives that can focus on developing the best product.

Yup, their financial reports are completely public and transparent. As a non-profit you could also access that data through other means

https://blog.ecosia.org/ecosia-financial-reports-tree-planti...

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#182

Post by evolve2k »

lxgr wrote: post #95

> [...] my two promises by turning Ecosia into a so-called “steward-owned company”. This model imposes two legally binding and irreversible restrictions on us: I really hope that we'll get a legal precedent for this actually being possible and durable in at least some countries, because that was the promise of OpenAI at some point as well. (That's not to say I have reason to suspect anything bad of the current or any…

As I understand it registering as a Public Benefit Corporation assists with this and creates an explicit obligation for the directors to stick with the stated purpose in the constitution.

According to Wikipedia: "The benefit corporation legislation ensures that a director is required to consider other public benefits in addition to profit, preventing shareholders from using a drop in stock value as evidence for dismissal or a lawsuit against the corporation." ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation

Anyone have experience with Benefit corporations and more specifically what legal remedies are available if a corporation once setup as a benefit corporation fails to adhere to it's enhanced responsibilities. Or its directors for that matter.

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#183

Post by brookst »

dwedge wrote: post #126
brookst wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“They’re trying to do better, which means they’re claiming to be perfect, but I am wise enough to know nobody’s perfect, so they’re a bunch of liars who are no better than all those other liars” It does get fatiguing.

That's a lot of projection in a forum where you're supposed to assume the best of people you talk with. I never presented that false dichotomy.

Apologies if it seemed personal. I was observing a far too common pattern here, where, as you say, charitable interpretations are encouraged.

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#184

Post by bigs »

Blackthorn wrote: post #117
roughly wrote: post #116

There’s a thing we tend to do as engineers where we hear a thing and then start thinking through the implications and design, which is normal, but also we seem to assume we’re the only ones who’ve ever thought about it, and therefore our concerns must be unaddressed, and we’re brilliant, so clearly nobody’s ever thought of them before, so we’ve gotta share them. If you’d like to see this behavior in action, this is t…

That sort of arrogance is absolutely out of control in the tech industry and it's bizarre because I've never seen it at the remotely same level anywhere else.

Maybe because others aren’t “disrupting” everyone else

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#185

Post by jjani »

DannyBee wrote: post #130
lxgr wrote: post #95

> [...] my two promises by turning Ecosia into a so-called “steward-owned company”. This model imposes two legally binding and irreversible restrictions on us: I really hope that we'll get a legal precedent for this actually being possible and durable in at least some countries, because that was the promise of OpenAI at some point as well. (That's not to say I have reason to suspect anything bad of the current or any…

"I really hope that we'll get a legal precedent for this actually being possible and durable in at least some countries, because that was the promise of OpenAI at some point as well." Lawyer here - it is basically impossible to do what they (and others) want. There are few (if any?) countries, where either provision would survive bankruptcy, for example. They could always choose to dissolve rather than restructure, b…

> You can also do hilarious (to me) things like create enough shareholders (let's say 7 billion), make shares non-transferrable, etc, so that even though theoretically it requires a vote, such a vote is practically impossible.

Doesn't this mean it's quite possible to achieve what they want? Is there a limit on how absurd the statutes can get (at least in your jurisdiction)? Votes have to be held at 3:00AM on Mondays, in person, at the company voting office, which happens to be on top of Mt. Everest?

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#186

Post by hedora »

DannyBee wrote: post #130
lxgr wrote: post #95

> [...] my two promises by turning Ecosia into a so-called “steward-owned company”. This model imposes two legally binding and irreversible restrictions on us: I really hope that we'll get a legal precedent for this actually being possible and durable in at least some countries, because that was the promise of OpenAI at some point as well. (That's not to say I have reason to suspect anything bad of the current or any…

"I really hope that we'll get a legal precedent for this actually being possible and durable in at least some countries, because that was the promise of OpenAI at some point as well." Lawyer here - it is basically impossible to do what they (and others) want. There are few (if any?) countries, where either provision would survive bankruptcy, for example. They could always choose to dissolve rather than restructure, b…

A corollary to the above is that it’s impossible for a company to gather personal information but not put it up for sale.

This is doubly true for public companies, as we saw with Twitter.

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#187

Post by JackYoustra »

Blackthorn wrote: post #117
roughly wrote: post #116

There’s a thing we tend to do as engineers where we hear a thing and then start thinking through the implications and design, which is normal, but also we seem to assume we’re the only ones who’ve ever thought about it, and therefore our concerns must be unaddressed, and we’re brilliant, so clearly nobody’s ever thought of them before, so we’ve gotta share them. If you’d like to see this behavior in action, this is t…

That sort of arrogance is absolutely out of control in the tech industry and it's bizarre because I've never seen it at the remotely same level anywhere else.

econ on hackernews be like

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#188

Post by lazyasciiart »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #125
Blackthorn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sort of arrogance is absolutely out of control in the tech industry and it's bizarre because I've never seen it at the remotely same level anywhere else.

It can make it difficult to work in the industry because you find yourself surrounded with expert beginners who (generally privately) think they're geniuses. I love working with people who aren't afraid to solve problems, but are also firmly in the camp of recognizing how clueless we usually are. We shouldn't be terrified of failure, anxious about what we don't know, etc. But man, some humility goes a long way. The a…

Heard a guy about six months out of undergrad once declare (completely serious) that of course he knew how to run a school district, he attended public school! Wow did that make me distrust every suggestion he made.

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#189

Post by Nevermark »

zbyforgotp wrote: post #21
stavros wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it aligns with the interests of the consumers better if you're actually targeting consumers (for the recurring revenue) rather than burning cash to get as many users as you can lock in, and then selling to someone who will milk them when they have no option.

They can do the milking without selling - don’t they?

If they are planting a million trees a month why "worry" that they might be getting paid, sorry "milking", to do their jobs?

The company is doing the work to earn that money.

Nobody would call it "milking" money if they were a billionaire owned company rapaciously leveraging their trapped customers for every dime. I don't think its the right word to use here.

Re: Trees not profits: we're giving up our right to ever sell Ecosia (2018)

#190

Post by lazyasciiart »

DannyBee wrote: post #130
lxgr wrote: post #95

> [...] my two promises by turning Ecosia into a so-called “steward-owned company”. This model imposes two legally binding and irreversible restrictions on us: I really hope that we'll get a legal precedent for this actually being possible and durable in at least some countries, because that was the promise of OpenAI at some point as well. (That's not to say I have reason to suspect anything bad of the current or any…

"I really hope that we'll get a legal precedent for this actually being possible and durable in at least some countries, because that was the promise of OpenAI at some point as well." Lawyer here - it is basically impossible to do what they (and others) want. There are few (if any?) countries, where either provision would survive bankruptcy, for example. They could always choose to dissolve rather than restructure, b…

Didn’t Patagonia pretty much achieve this?
Post reply on HN