Topics

moderated Paid vs free policy- request


KWKloeber
 

Mark,
I became aware of this from a discussion on the GMF:

Is your group associated with Indivisible? Please contact support, and we will upgrade your group to Premium for free.

VERY inappropriate!  And suggest/request it be removed. Or rename the io platform to make it clear that it is a politically oriented platform.

If you want to support or promote ANY political agenda you should do so privately and not via policies on io. Yes, it’s your baby but it should remain neutral.  The members’, users’, and paid or unpaid groups’ leanings, left right center up or down, is their own business, as YOURS should also be. 

And BTW, it’s no indication whether I support (or don’t) Indivisible.


dave w
 

Disagree.
Its his business.
Dont like it- well you know....
davew


KWKloeber
 

Dave

1. You must have missed the post long ago that this isn’t supposed to a popularity poll or to debate what one person or another personally thinks of a request. That’s MF’s business to decide whether or not to act. 

2. I said, “it’s his baby” (did you disagree with that also or only the words you did read?)  But the alternate request is that to be fair to users, MF should be upfront (painfully so) and make it clear before suckering folks over from Y! what ALL the conditions are if he doesn’t want to keep his baby neutral. That’s not unreasonable. If it is, then Mark you indeed have a hidden political agenda, as the member involved in the discussion claims. 


 

What “conditions” are you referring to? There are no “conditions” for groups.io membership other than the TOU. 

Mark’s exhortation not to debate feature requests was about feature requests. Which this isn’t.


On May 19, 2019, at 11:56 PM, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:

Dave

1. You must have missed the post long ago that this isn’t supposed to a popularity poll or to debate what one person or another personally thinks of a request. That’s MF’s business to decide whether or not to act. 

2. I said, “it’s his baby” (did you disagree with that also or only the words you did read?)  But the alternate request is that to be fair to users, MF should be upfront (painfully so) and make it clear before suckering folks over from Y! what ALL the conditions are if he doesn’t want to keep his baby neutral. That’s not unreasonable. If it is, then Mark you indeed have a hidden political agenda, as the member involved in the discussion claims. 


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Bruce Bowman
 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 02:56 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
But the alternate request is that to be fair to users, MF should be upfront (painfully so) and make it clear before suckering folks over from Y! what ALL the conditions are if he doesn’t want to keep his baby neutral. That’s not unreasonable.
And I can't speak for others, but I for one do not believe that my groups have been "suckered over from Yahoo." 

Regards,
Bruce


Glenn Glazer
 

Ken,

I think it is "VERY inappropriate" of you to tell Mark how to run his business. This is not a feature request you have made. Mark solely owns and operates groups.io and as others have remarked, it is his to run as he so chooses. If he chooses to support a cause, that's his business and it has nothing to do with how a groups.io group functions.

Best,

Glenn
P.S. The attempt to suppress political speech is, in and of itself, political speech. So you are doing exactly what you claim to be wrong.

On 5/19/2019 19:50, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io wrote:
Mark,
I became aware of this from a discussion on the GMF:

Is your group associated with Indivisible? Please contact support, and we will upgrade your group to Premium for free.

VERY inappropriate!  And suggest/request it be removed. Or rename the io platform to make it clear that it is a politically oriented platform.

If you want to support or promote ANY political agenda you should do so privately and not via policies on io. Yes, it’s your baby but it should remain neutral.  The members’, users’, and paid or unpaid groups’ leanings, left right center up or down, is their own business, as YOURS should also be. 

And BTW, it’s no indication whether I support (or don’t) Indivisible


--
We must work to make the Democratic Party the Marketplace of Ideas not the Marketplace of Favors.



Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com



Barry_M
 

For whatever it's worth, I'd love to add one factual comment and one opinion I'm qualified to share.

First the latter; my opinion.  We moved our group from Yahoo to groups.io a few months ago for one simple reason.  That being that Yahoo Groups have been in decline for years, aren't getting the attention of the parent company given what must be assumed is corporate apathy and other priorities.  After doing a fair bit of research on alternative options, we chose groups.io believing it the best-of-breed solution available.  Started with a free pilot and moved to premium maybe a month in.  Everything we've experienced in these first few months supports our belief that we made a great decision migrating here.  Groups.io is a uniquely effective, well-built and well-managed platform.  Mark needs to know that some number (presumably most or nearly all?) of us feel this way and are super appreciative of what he has built that enables great connectivity and community.

And the factual bit.  On the concern raised, I'd just note that there are a great many Fortune 500, and smaller, companies that take all kinds of positions on a great many issues beyond their own business or market foci.  Some decide to locate facilities in certain markets or pull out of certain markets due to concerns not informed by the usual business analyses. Some issue statements for public consumption to influence or participate in causes they consider important. This is all clearly protected by the 1st Amendment and, more to the point as most surely realize, for-profit companies do this all the time embracing whatever point of view out of concern or belief.  At the same time, of course also true that any prospective or actual customer can choose to buy or not buy from any provider of anything and for any reason.

Thank you, Mark. And, thanks to all of you who help manage and support this forum. Beyond the web and keyboards, groups.io matters quite a lot and that importance and relevance will only grow with time.  Personally, I hope Groups.io becomes as big and successful as the founder and owner wishes it to be.  


 

Amen on both counts, and well-said!


On May 20, 2019, at 7:56 AM, Barry Winer via Groups.Io <bmwiner@...> wrote:

For whatever it's worth, I'd love to add one factual comment and one opinion I'm qualified to share.

First the latter; my opinion.  We moved our group from Yahoo to groups.io a few months ago for one simple reason.  That being that Yahoo Groups have been in decline for years, aren't getting the attention of the parent company given what must be assumed is corporate apathy and other priorities.  After doing a fair bit of research on alternative options, we chose groups.io believing it the best-of-breed solution available.  Started with a free pilot and moved to premium maybe a month in.  Everything we've experienced in these first few months supports our belief that we made a great decision migrating here.  Groups.io is a uniquely effective, well-built and well-managed platform.  Mark needs to know that some number (presumably most or nearly all?) of us feel this way and are super appreciative of what he has built that enables great connectivity and community.

And the factual bit.  On the concern raised, I'd just note that there are a great many Fortune 500, and smaller, companies that take all kinds of positions on a great many issues beyond their own business or market foci.  Some decide to locate facilities in certain markets or pull out of certain markets due to concerns not informed by the usual business analyses. Some issue statements for public consumption to influence or participate in causes they consider important. This is all clearly protected by the 1st Amendment and, more to the point as most surely realize, for-profit companies do this all the time embracing whatever point of view out of concern or belief.  At the same time, of course also true that any prospective or actual customer can choose to buy or not buy from any provider of anything and for any reason.

Thank you, Mark. And, thanks to all of you who help manage and support this forum. Beyond the web and keyboards, groups.io matters quite a lot and that importance and relevance will only grow with time.  Personally, I hope Groups.io becomes as big and successful as the founder and owner wishes it to be.  


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Bob Bellizzi
 

Hear, hear!  Well Said.  As a codicil to that I intend to refrain from further comment and adopt an old British custom in relation to KK of shunning the author of our discord in this matter.
--

Bob Bellizzi


 

Bob,
It seems to me that you, Ken are attempting to make foment and advance your political political agenda.
Completely agree. I'm only following this discussion and I'm not intending by any means to take sides here, but I really agree with you. Well said.

Cheers,
Marcio AKA Starboy

Sent from a galaxy far, far away.


 

Hi Ken,

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:50 PM Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:

Is your group associated with Indivisible? Please contact support, and we will upgrade your group to Premium for free.

VERY inappropriate!  And suggest/request it be removed. Or rename the io platform to make it clear that it is a politically oriented platform.

I don't think I can add anything that hasn't already been said much better by others, especially Barry's comment about companies and the decisions they make.

I will say that I've tried to make it easy for groups and users to export all their data should they want to leave. I don't want anyone to feel hoodwinked and trapped. No shenanigans here.

I'm happy to continue discussing, but beta probably isn't the place for it. I'll be locking the topic soon.

Thanks,
Mark


Ken Schweizer
 

Hi Mark,

 

This is one Ken who is appreciative of what you have done and made available to us. I have never been accused of being a progressive, but this is your endeavor and you have a right to charge or not charge whoever or whatever you want. All of us who use the service you are providing always has the option to leave if we really disagree with your policies, but those who just want a free pass should either keep their thoughts to themselves or outright say "me too".

 

Again, thanks.

Ken

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:25 AM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Paid vs free policy- request

 

Hi Ken,

 

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:50 PM Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:


Is your group associated with Indivisible? Please contact support, and we will upgrade your group to Premium for free.

VERY inappropriate!  And suggest/request it be removed. Or rename the io platform to make it clear that it is a politically oriented platform.

I don't think I can add anything that hasn't already been said much better by others, especially Barry's comment about companies and the decisions they make.

 

I will say that I've tried to make it easy for groups and users to export all their data should they want to leave. I don't want anyone to feel hoodwinked and trapped. No shenanigans here.

 

I'm happy to continue discussing, but beta probably isn't the place for it. I'll be locking the topic soon.

 

Thanks,

Mark


Barbara Byers
 

Hi Mark,

I agree with Ken, and thank you!

Barb

 


On 2019-05-20 12:59 PM, Ken Schweizer wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

This is one Ken who is appreciative of what you have done and made available to us. I have never been accused of being a progressive, but this is your endeavor and you have a right to charge or not charge whoever or whatever you want. All of us who use the service you are providing always has the option to leave if we really disagree with your policies, but those who just want a free pass should either keep their thoughts to themselves or outright say "me too".

 

Again, thanks.

Ken

 

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." God

 

From: main@beta.groups.io [mailto:main@beta.groups.io] On Behalf Of Mark Fletcher
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 11:25 AM
To: main@beta.groups.io
Subject: Re: [beta] Paid vs free policy- request

 

Hi Ken,

 

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:50 PM Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:


Is your group associated with Indivisible? Please contact support, and we will upgrade your group to Premium for free.

VERY inappropriate!  And suggest/request it be removed. Or rename the io platform to make it clear that it is a politically oriented platform.

I don't think I can add anything that hasn't already been said much better by others, especially Barry's comment about companies and the decisions they make.

 

I will say that I've tried to make it easy for groups and users to export all their data should they want to leave. I don't want anyone to feel hoodwinked and trapped. No shenanigans here.

 

I'm happy to continue discussing, but beta probably isn't the place for it. I'll be locking the topic soon.

 

Thanks,

Mark

 


Nancy Funk
 

I'm at the opposite side of the political spectrum than Mark, but I fully respect the freedom he had to support whoever he wishes. I certainly wouldn't want someone telling me who or what I can support with my hard earned money. 

We need more freedom of speech and association not less. 


 

Mark,


I'm happy to continue discussing, but beta probably isn't the place for it. I'll be locking the topic soon.

I happen to agree with the OP Ken (Kloeber) on his point, and would be happy to share my reasoning. If not here, where? Does beta need a subgroup for such side discussions? Or do you prefer to take them individually and privately?

I also happen to agree with him that beta is an appropriate place for having made his suggestion: it would be an improvement (in my eyes at least) to the Groups.io service to avoid putting such offers (or any other form of discrimination) on its official pages (cf: Excluding selected members from Yahoo Group transfer). However, I also agree with you that beta may not a good place a detailed discussion of why it is or is not a good suggestion or even an appropriate suggestion.

Shal


 

Shal, 
Your comment reads like a koan. :)
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu


Maria
 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:56 AM, Barry Winer wrote:
Thank you, Mark. And, thanks to all of you who help manage and support this forum. Beyond the web and keyboards, groups.io matters quite a lot and that importance and relevance will only grow with time.  Personally, I hope Groups.io becomes as big and successful as the founder and owner wishes it to be.  
Amen. Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth - am losing count... THIS!

And all the other points Barry made.

I will add one more point: after what Facebook allowed 3rd party companies to do with user data, and everything we now know about how that company's data was used, how it was a platform for fake news and much more, I completely support a private for profit business like groups.io making whatever upfront and out in the open decisions about whose premium fee is waived. In the future, Groups.io could be adding other organizations to that list for free upgrades - and that's fine. Organizations need a viable alternative to facebook. One they can trust - and everything else Barry said in his second paragraph.

Maria


KWKloeber
 

Shal

I didn't find anything paradoxical or zenish about your statements -- succinct and logical.  
I would appreciate a further discussion of the appropriateness of ANY discrimination left/right/up/down.  To ass/u/me that I lean one way or the other based on a disagreement about a discriminatory policy is, well, assinine. 

And TY for not (falsely) equating a discovery/observation/request, to some inane thought that one doesn't appreciate Mark's hard work, nor doesn't wish io the greatest success going forward.  THANK YOU, Mark.  Passion about something means one cares deeply about its success.  When one DOESN'T care where something is headed, is when one doesn't give a crap about its success.  Don't confuse those two -- for the sake of expediency in beating down a request for neutrality.  We can agree or disagree with policies without either kissing @ss or being disagreeable, and to ass/u/me that I wish io some kind of failure is, well, just assinine on its face.

And if all REALLY want to encourage political openness, then don't discriminate -- encourage open meaningful and honest discussion on both sides and not discriminate. Prefer plain old neutrality in this biosphere, there's too much division (and Indivisible does not promote unity, it promotes defeat by garnering greater numbers, which leads to more division and gridlock.)


 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 12:29 PM Shal Farley <shals2nd@...> wrote:

I happen to agree with the OP Ken (Kloeber) on his point, and would be happy to share my reasoning. If not here, where? Does beta need a subgroup for such side discussions? Or do you prefer to take them individually and privately?

Can we keep this a short discussion? If so, I think having it here would be fine (my initial gut reaction was not to have it here, but creating a subgroup feels ... heavy). My concern would be that I wouldn't want the discussion to devolve into a debate over politics, which it seems would be easy enough to do. Maybe I put a time limit on the discussion to a couple days? And after that I replace any new post with a picture of a cat.

Thanks,
Mark 


Barry_M
 

Could it be a dog?  More specifically perhaps a labrador retriever puppy like the one attached? Even cat people like labs.  Labs are the eminently agreeable and peace-making dogs.