Topics

moderated Paid vs free policy- request


 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 9:45 PM Barry_M via Groups.Io <bmwiner=zoho.com@groups.io> wrote:

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.

Damn, that's a cute puppy. Consider that fuzzball included!

Mark 


KWKloeber
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:39 AM, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Can we keep this a short discussion?
Thanks Mark. 

For the record:

1. I didn't intend to post this request in an inappropriate board.  I'm not a power user like J and others here, and I don't know elsewhere to post such a request.

2. I also didn't start a popularity poll -- merely a request to Mark for him and only him to consider. 

3. But on the other hand, I'm more than happy to discuss it with my reasoning.  That's "discuss" -- not simply counter "me too," "me three" knee-jerk replies -- they are meaningless, as Mark already heard what I already said that he already knew -- it's HIS baby.

4. No, no one hijacked a Y! group and dragged it to io by the hair.  But on the other hand, no one advertises that "Be aware that, if  you come to IO, the platform discriminates in favor of the (insert left/right/up/down -- anything you want to) political faction, rather than encouraging a full and open multi-political discussion."  Now, that would be complete disclosure and transparency.

5. The policy can cause difficulties for group owners. Yes, the knee-jerks will say, "Well it's my group (just like "it's Mark's baby"} so go pound....whatever." But that's just another typical knee-jerk reply w/o carefully considering the implications of the difficulty and position that any discriminatory policy could unwittingly place certain groups/owners into.  e.g., What if Indivisible joined io (maybe it has, I dunno?), and members discovered afterward that Mark discriminated in favor of MAGA supporters???  A horse of a different color, 'eh?  What hell could (or SHOULD) the group owner receive? 

6. It's just not a good thing, for everyone involved, to be associated with discriminatory policies, whether they are in favor of your camp or against your camp. 

7. I learned something as a kid (60 years ago) that "Just because you can do something, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea." The corollary to "Just because it's not illegal, doesn't necessarily. make it a good idea to do."

-k


 

> 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.
>
-------------------
 
Stepping back from the situation a little, I see a different perspective on this situation.
 
What if a wealthy individual or group approached Mark and said "I want to help support all the little humane societies out there who struggle to keep a few members informed and are loosely affiliated with a national group or a governmental entity, and I'd like to do it anonymously. I'd like to pick up the Premium costs for these groups myself, and I would be willing to make individual determinations of who qualifies."
 
Would that be wrong? Would that really be anyone's business except for groups.io management, the individual paying the tab, and the individual groups affected?
 
And if it were okay, what would be the best way to reach those people trying to create those small groups? Wouldn't it make sense to have a simple statement on the Pricing page to make those people aware that such a support was available.
 
What if those original groups dedicated to Freecycling had a benefactor who believed in such causes and wanted to support smaller independent groups to further the cause of non-profit recycling? Again, would it really be anyone else's business if they weren't directly affected? It seems that part of the the benefit is to those others who have free groups, which the Premium groups subsidize, even if they aren't aware of it.
 
Taking that one step further, what if another type of groups had such a benefactor and they were interested in something a little more political? Would that be wrong as well? Would that be anyone else's business either unless they were directly affected? And how else would you let those people know? 
 
All the statement in question says is that groups associated with a particular value or cause can request a subsidized upgrade by contacting support. It doesn't say who is actually paying the dime for it, and someone not directly involved might not have a need to know that would outweigh the donor's right to privacy. The statement appears in the most logical place where a person creating a new group would find it. Of course there would have to be some guidelines regarding what types of groups could be supported, but then groups.io already has guidelines on what types of groups are acceptable in the first place, so that's not much of a stretch.
 
I see this as an example where people made assumptions that politicized a situation that might not be as they imagined.
 
Dano


 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:29 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
I didn't intend to post this request in an inappropriate board.
It's not that you posted it in an inappropriate place. It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. You were not suggesting a feature.

Furthermore, in the same breath as claiming you were "not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it. I don't care about your political opinions but I do think we should leave politics out of discussions on beta.

I don't consider myself a "power user" and am not sure what you meant by that.
 
--
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


 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 07:47 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Shal

I didn't find anything paradoxical or zenish about your statements
There's nothing negative about koans. They lead to enlightenment :)
 
--
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


 

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 09:45 PM, Barry_M wrote:
Even cat people like labs.
I can vouch for that! image.png
 
--
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


 

Mark,

Can we keep this a short discussion?
Certainly.

tl/dr: "Having the right to do a thing does not make it the right thing to do".

My concern would be that I wouldn't want the discussion to devolve
into a debate over politics, ...
Agreed. I don't want that either.

My concern has nothing to do with what organizations you wish to support. It has to do with the face Groups.io presents to potential users.

Groups.io is a product of global scope, and one presumably striving to be a reliable long-term service. In that light, I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

(I realize that you're advertising to that group, not for that group, but in this context I think that is a distinction without a difference.)

In fact, it is off-putting to a large number of people (those opposed to that that organization's agenda) and at best distracting to a potentially larger group of people (those outside the U.S., or at any rate uninterested in U.S. politics). It drives a completely unnecessary wedge between people who would otherwise band together in an apolitical group.

For example, I run groups here related to my high school classmates, and to my children's PTA unit. The members of those groups undoubtedly hold a wide mix of political views. If some fraction of my group members feel uncomfortable using this service for reasons that have nothing to do with the agenda and content of my group then I have a problem running that group. In the case of the PTA group it is conceivable that PTA bylaws could be cited to prohibit me from running the unit's email list here.

Shal


 

Shal wrote: I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

 

Although (as a European) I very much admire the goals and commitment of Indivisible, I agree with Shal.

 

Victoria

 


 

On 21 May 2019, at 09:52, Victoria via Groups.Io <dr.vcaesar@...> wrote:

Although (as a European) I very much admire the goals and commitment of Indivisible, I agree with Shal.

As another European (UK, where we know a thing or two about divisive politics 😉), I agree with Victoria’s comment above. However, were my political views more different, I might feel that I did not wish to be a part of such a platform, but that would be my choice.

Is it better to be completely transparent about this, or to present an entirely apparently neutral space? I tend to think that the ‘professional’ and the ‘personal’ are separate and one can present them as such.

kind regards

Nick
__

dUNMUR | member of the Association of Photographers



Maria
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:40 AM, Shal Farley wrote:
Groups.io is a product of global scope, and one presumably striving to be a reliable long-term service. In that light, I think that placing an advertisement for an organization based in topical U.S. partisan politics on an official (and prominent) page of the service is, at best, counterproductive.

(I realize that you're advertising to that group, not for that group, but in this context I think that is a distinction without a difference.)
I understand Shal's point, but have a different reaction - and a partially European perspective FWIW.

The giants of social media ( despite all the damage they have done and continue to do to privacy and democracy) - seem to have very clear approaches (now) to content that they will no longer support ( anti-vaccine groups / alt-right and any organized hate groups/people) - they either remove ads from their accounts so no one can make money off of content like that ( youtube) or change the coding so that groups like that don't get suggested to other people, and other strategies to not help them thrive - before they get kicked off. That's their prerogative. And there are plenty of alternative sites that folks engaged in organized hate etc can and do go to. Mostly start-ups.

Groups.io ( unlike youtube/twitter/facebook/instagram) doesn't make money from advertising or data tracking. The business model here is straight forward and transparent.
Groups on groups.io are clients of Groups.io
Groups.io provides a service.

If Groups.io wants to offer that service, or upgrades to that service to organizations that fit a certain category - so be it.
It's totally within the parameters of what other businesses do ( see non-profit rates etc).

I would think this is a good opportunity to focus on what kinds of groups Groups.io wants to provide free upgrades to - and those it doesn't. As well as those it simply doesn't want to take on as clients.

Because lets be clear - all other platforms have made that choice - whether it's by tweaking algorithms, banning, or inviting.

So, rather than specifically offer a free upgrade to only Indivisible ( which i think started in 2017 shortly after the election in the USA and shortly after the world realized how their use of facebook had actually provided data to 3rd parties) - I'd suggest crafting a clear policy for non-profits, NGO's, causes, Humanitarian orgs, or organizations that combat hate and discrimination - there may be Mark Fletcher "scholarships" for here on Groups.io.  Since it's a company of global reach, I'd urge Mark to think bigger, and by all means dedicate his personal support - through his company - to the causes he feels he wants to help.

So, you can separate it and call it the Cats of Groups.io Fund, Or the MF Fund for a kinder world - or whatever you want - but I'd urge you to go with your heart and facilitate - with your personal stamp - help to those orgs you feel will make the world a better place.

Maria



 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 05:42 AM, HR Tech wrote:
I'd urge you to go with your heart and facilitate - with your personal stamp - help to those orgs you feel will make the world a better place.
Another "amen" to that. I would urge the same. (Not much to worry about re ROW, by the way - not in this case.) 
 
--
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


KWKloeber
 

<<<It's that after posting it, you tried to stop communication about it by calling on Mark's rule about not debating the value of features. >>>

I believe that you missed my point on my follow up.  I did not try to prevent discussion — even my senior pea brain knows that I couldn’t do that :-).  That obvious was one of what I call the knee-jerk posts, eager to tap out a retort while not comprehending the OP.   In part, he disagreed with me (what, that I had already said its Marks baby and can do what he wants??). And the purpose of discussion here is to improve on it debate the merits (or demerits) of a request. That’s not what the reply was — it was a knee jerk, “I’m just against this.”  Shal’s and others’ recent thoughtful discussions are what is enlightening. The knee jerk popularity poll “me too, three, four, sixteen, I’ve lost count” is what’s detrimental to the process.


<<<You were not suggesting a feature.>>>

Again, I already said I didn’t know where to raise this.   Whether it’s a feature of io might be an honest debate.  Or one of those distinctions w/o a difference?  Policies are sometimes also discussed herein (ahem, Mark’s last topic, for instance?)

The real benefits to this is open meaningful intelligent thoughtful discussion, which is not enhanced by piling on by either side or knee jerking.  As I’ve said before, “if it’s a poll, then start an effin poll.” Jeeez, you liked that when I said it the previous time LOL!!!

<<<not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it.>>>
I’m not positive of which statement(s), just to avoid the obvious, please quote so I can be precise in my reply?

We agree!! J, (that’s a good common ground start) politics is banned, however discussion about policies about politics (either leaning) should not be. And I’m not suggesting that you are proposing that. 


 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:13 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
<<<You were not suggesting a feature.>>>
 
Again, I already said I didn’t know where to raise this.   Whether it’s a feature of io might be an honest debate.  Or one of those distinctions w/o a difference?  Policies are sometimes also discussed herein (ahem, Mark’s last topic, for instance?)
Nobody said it was wrong to raise this issue here. I and a couple of others were pointing out that Mark's asking not to debate the value of features applies to features. He did not say not to debate groups.io philosophical issues, or "policies." Yet you tried to cite that limitation to preclude debate about your issue. I don't think this is a distinction without a difference. A feature is part of a piece of software that users can use. This is not that. Perhaps Mark meant the limitation to include debates about broader issues and not just features. But that was not how he phrased it, and that was not how it's been taken here, and that's why your citing of it to preclude discussion of your issue did not seem appropriate .

<<<not leaning one way or the other" about Indivisible, you expressed your negative opinion of it.>>>
I’m not positive of which statement(s), just to avoid the obvious, please quote so I can be precise in my reply?
Right here: "Indivisible does not promote unity, it promotes defeat by garnering greater numbers, which leads to more division and gridlock" 
--
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


Michael Pavan
 

Many people support causes they believe in, and many company owners do so through their company. In Mark's case the easiest and probably most effective way for him to do that is by offering a Groups.io discount in a clearly defined way. I see it as no different than anybody else making a monetary donation in an open, non-secret manner.

The complaint seems to be that the way Mark is doing so is not PC. Since such support is not inappropriate, the suggestion is essentially that the wording should be:
"Apply for a discount if you believe your cause is worthy"
This not only makes what causes are supported a secret, but would also create a lot of extra work to have to field and reject/ignore many inquiries.

Besides the 'cat already being out of the bag', I see no good reason to cloak political support with secrecy - there is too much of that already. Not to mention it would make it harder for anyone know who wants to not use Groups.io good service.




-- .--- .--.


Maria
 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:13 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
And the purpose of discussion here is to improve on it debate the merits (or demerits) of a request. That’s not what the reply was — it was a knee jerk, “I’m just against this.”  Shal’s and others’ recent thoughtful discussions are what is enlightening. The knee jerk popularity poll “me too, three, four, sixteen, I’ve lost count” is what’s detrimental to the process.
Ken,

Agree that discussion here should focus on the merits ( or demerits) of a feature - or policy - and suggestions regarding these.
That said - and I usually try to keep my contributions focused on debating the issues not the individual - if you don't like the knee jerk reactions - please re-read your initial original post.

The tone of it, your choice of words, your CAPS, exclamation points, your bolds, underlining  - it reads remarkably rude and forceful.
Your insinuations of a "hidden political agenda", referring to "conditions" where there are none. Use of the word "suckering" just because Groups.io openly and transparently decided to comp upgrades to one grassroots org back in 2017.

If you want to ignite healthy respectful and thoughtful reflection on policies and not incite knee jerk reactions - you might want to try a different approach when you suggest (or "request" as you wrote) what grassroots orgs, causes etc., a business owner decides to comp on an upgrade.

Also a more accurate subject line would have been: Reviewing Policy Re: Free Upgrades to Premium Service.
Your subject line is inaccurate. Groups.io is free for all. It's up to groups to decide if they need the premium services.

And it's up to Groups.io to decide which organizations - if any - they elect to subsidize.
Just like Apple gives discounts to certain entities and categories of people (students/veterans) and not others.
Just like Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, Twitter, Microsoft, Whole Foods and countless others dedicate a whole arm of their business to supporting causes.

If anything good comes of this topic - again, I hope it's that it carves out time for Groups.io to broaden the reach of how they want to help NGO's, charities, and causes.
This is a MUCH ( sorry caps) better platform for any organization trying to do good than facebook will ever be.

Maria


KWKloeber
 

Maria

Caps for emphasis. Three words I believe?  Certainly not intended to be inflammatory, but if taken that way PLEASE (LOL) substitute an underline or bold for caps. 

Theres a huge difference between a company supporting a cause, and say, Apple or Verizon putting on their store banner “free phone and free service if you are a MAGA (or cross out and insert “x” here) supporter.”  It’s a false equivalency. 


KWKloeber
 

Ok I get the point.  Don’t pike on meaningless “me too, three” posts if it’s a software feature, but do so if it’s discussing a policy.  Ya. Really?

Yes, that characterization of the political group is true and it holds true no matter the leaning (left right or up or down.) Mark just “happened” to pick that one and that’s the reason I pointed out the fallacy in some of the replies. If the support was for MAGA, the same would hold true.  It’s not a political statement about their goals (end results) and not implied to be (which btw I happen to lean toward — in this recent “climate change” at least.)  Maybe that’s a hint about the request for “neutrality vs an agenda,” (and not a hidden agenda on my part?)

I believe he should rather support Labs (Yellow? Chocolate? Golden? it’s difficult to decide.). But then again as both a feline and Papillon lover moving to Lab support it’s a hard row to hoe. 😎



WHAT DO YOU THINK, ISLA-JEAN?  NATURAL OR PAINT THE  BRICK BRICK  WHITE?










BTW, I do care what your leanings are, and everyone’s as well. It would be much more worthwhile to know those of all Americans and not of the paid pundits who are paid by the networks in order  to foster division and raise ratings, instead of doing the harder work to present facts. 


 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:05 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
Theres a huge difference between a company supporting a cause, and say, Apple or Verizon putting on their store banner “free phone and free service if you are a MAGA (or cross out and insert “x” here) supporter.”  It’s a false equivalency. 
And it's an equivalency that no one is making but you. 
 
--
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


 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:37 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
that characterization of the political group is true
No, it is not "true." It is your opinion. And that's precisely why I did not quote you originally: to avoid this kind of substantive political discussion.
 
--
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


 

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:37 PM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
the paid pundits who are paid by the networks in order  to foster division and raise ratings, instead of doing the harder work to present facts. 
Once again: could you please lay off the politics? It is becoming too hard not to counter these kinds of blatantly political statements. 
 
--
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