this post was submitted on 22 Mar 2024
1450 points (99.1% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • Mozilla ends partnership with Onerep due to CEO's ties to data broker
  • Onerep's data removal service bundled into Mozilla's Monitor Plus subscription
  • Onerep CEO admits to owning people-search websites, leading to end of partnership with Mozilla. Transition plan in progress.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 52 points 8 months ago (1 children)

its a good long term business move. And mozilla is a nonprofit, not beholden to the whims of shareholders, so they can do long term moves in peace.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 21 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Nonprofits can’t lose money. They still got bills and are motivated by revenue. I say this as someone who has worked in non-profits for most of my adult life

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Am I wrong in saying the lack of shareholders makes it easier for non profits to make long term profitable business decisions, compared to companies with shareholders, who seem to often care about short term revenue above anything else?

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 15 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

For-profits don’t all have shareholders. Non-profits still have boards (and with non-profits it’s at times more difficult to rid your company of toxic board members). I’ve seen non-profits that move like snails and for-profits that move like cheetahs.

And I wouldn’t really say it’s easier, no. For two companies of the same size, I don’t think it would be any different just because you’re a public company. Plenty of them don’t mind posting a loss if they defend it with investments. Investors, especially institutional ones, don’t just look at revenue. Assets, liabilities, equity, it all frames investing decisions.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 3 points 8 months ago

Today I learned!

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

How can't non-profits lose money ? I don't understand

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They need to make money. They need to pay bills and pay employees. If you’re losing money, you have to fire people or downsize, just like any other business. Or borrow money

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

So they're always immune to losing money ? are they protected by law in this regard ?

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Sorry, I think I wasn’t clear. They can’t lose money if they want to remain in business is what I should have said.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Ok it all makes sense in retrospect... thanks (synonymous with "They cannot afford to lose money")

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You were clear. The other guy was being a pedant or an idiot.

[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 0 points 8 months ago

Kindly get fucked, if you don't mind (I hope my English comes across well)