Thank you for your thoughts Shal,
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 10:09 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
... have some kind of delusion and distorted perception that revenue
In what way is that even a stretch, much less delusional? Revenue from Premium Groups finances Groups.io, and Groups.io subsidizes the support of at least one partisan organization (Indivisible). That's not too many dots to follow.
from premium groups is used to “finance the promotion of the left-wing
The wording used was: to “finance the promotion of the left-wing political view”.
At best it's an exaggeration.
It's a broad statement about the company as a whole financing the "promotion" of the "left wing political view".
I mean, what's a premium group cost? $110 x year.
Look I get it. Indivisible, because of their stated goal to defeat the "Trump Agenda" and promote progressive policies and progressive candidates is partisan. Agreed.
My main concern - which I don't think I've expressed - is that having the line about the waiver as a headline, could give the false impression that Groups.io
is not a welcoming or excellent platform for all kinds of groups ( except those that are clearly outlined as not welcome). I would hate for groups who don't agree with indivisible's specific approach to not feel welcome here - because again - I think their using other platforms that exploit them, doesn't help anyone, and because I know it's the best platform out there. I enjoy diversity and freedom of speech, and well, would never join a club that would have just me as a member - as they say.
My other concern is that there are other good orgs/non-profits who may need help and who may thrive on Groups.io
- and I'd rather see the policy defined so that the umbrella of who gets a free upgrade is not limited to one ( now) non-profit. But obviously who, what, groups.io
wants to support and who they don't - and how much room there is in the budget for waivers is none of my business.