locked Re: Pricing Changes #update
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I can't find the whole of my original message -- which Samuel Murrayy quoted a part of a sentence from (or it could be a whole sentence without a period at the end). Yes I was suggesting that maybe Mark Fletcher had in mind charging the basic (now called free) groups.io all along but I didn't say he did because I cannot know that. I did not have any inference in mind beyond that, logical or intuitive or not.
I don't understand many of the parts of Mr Murrayy's message. I gather from intuition insofar as I can understand he is saying that Mark Fletcher originally meant to build a new business model and saw groups.io as groups intent on business operations. Really?
I am no businesswoman, have never worked in private industry except decades ago as an Executive secretary in a (I could see profoundly corrupt) corporation in the US for 2 weeks and just before that for 6 months in a business in the UK (not a bad place) where I was a personal assistant. In neither place did I ever have anything to do with any digital stuff: this was 1968-69. My three groups are not businesses. We are groups made up of (it was originally hoped by me and is true in part) of friends reading books together. No one is making any money, no one is making any profit; to participate in such a thing in the academy (where I used to work) is infra dig, in fact it is looked up as useless and used to give you lower status. Nowadays it depends on where it is coming from and who is in it. But still tenured people think you are mad to do this kind of thing. The other lists I am on as a member are just the same -- all reading groups, or I know of knitting groups, or people sharing like opinions (feminist -- yes there are still feminists in the world -- lists about womens' problems)
So if there are services given and taken away because they are business ones I don't recognize this.
Some of Mr Murrayy's sentences floor me: "I'll wager Mark's main problem isn't getting money from basic groups that are truly communities, but rather getting money from basic groups who are free-loading in a community habitat for non-community-like purposes ...:
What could this possibly mean? I understand the individual words; I even know the usual meaning of habitat but what are "the non-community like purposes" he is impugning? Who are the people who are "target users for paid services?"
How is the new pricing structure going to kill groups.io as a community? I don't understand. I was hoping and do think my three lists of active members (I concede that some maybe many of the silent members are not truly members of our community; they are mostly what's called free riders) are small communities. Yes to ask us to pay would destroy us because most of the people I fear would not pay. Some might but not enough if the price were prohibitive for them.
In the antepenultimate paragraph (third from the last) I gather services seen as for businesses are in premium groups. We still have files and photos in our basic/free group. We never had any wiki that I know of. I don't know what you mean by many of your words -- like database
I wish people would stop using the word "brand" and all its cognates -- rebranding and so on. Vague buzz noises. Mark changed the names of things and yes that can stigmatize. To call a group hitherto named Basic to Free in our capitalist society stigmatizes the Free group. I have heard a certain individual repeatedly call public schools "government schools" - wow does that stigmatize 200 years of progress for enabling all the members of our society to go to school, learn to read and write and many skills and gain knowledge of all kinds. It is a profoundly sickening stigmatizing. But I am not a brand. I am an individual with a name.
I don't know what most basic groups have in mind if they have anything in mind. From the 3 I moderate/run and the 3 I join in on I think the people don't have the money to pay anything considerable. They probably already as individuals have enough monthly and yearly payments for what they may consider they need -- like water, electricity, gas ...
I have answered Mr Murrayy because his message distressed me: it seems to impose on me and my groups ulterior motives we don't have and impose on Mark Fletcher various motives and goals I am not sure he has, all of which tend to corrode trust and belief in good decent motives. The worst thing in our society as to values over these past 4 years and more is the corrosion of trust and belief there can be good pro-social goals between individuals and groups of people.
On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 5:10 AM Samuel Murrayy <samuelmurray@...> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 06:22 PM, Ellen Moody wrote: