Date
61 - 73 of 73
moderated Paid vs free policy- request
|
Maria
PS: I didn't realize, but Indivisible is now a registered 501(c)(4) ( I don't think it was back in 2017 when it was just a grassroots thing ).
The groups that are associated with it are probably chapters of the home org? non-profits too? So maybe it all falls under a paragraph re: non-profits in the FAQ and then another for grassroots orgs that meet criteria as defined in a link to a values page. In addition to the clear guidelines re: what kind of groups will not be hosted.
|
|
|
|
Maria
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 revenueIn 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. 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. Come on. 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. Maria
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
Thanks Maria for your reasoned elaboration. That’s going along the lines of one way I had suggested.
Alternately, and again this has NO bearing on that or any other cause, I wouldn’t expect Mark to in any form or fashion downplay it if he supports any partisan group very strongly. That’s his baby. And his business decision as far as any consequences pro or con. So, in that scenario I don’t see much issue where it resides/could be plastered all over GIO. So long as it’s crystal clear on any page that a potential IO user (especially free) would see beforehand to get the message before signing up for service. “Informed consent.” When I said “suckered” I meant a group who signs up, not being told “in their face” about who/what GIO supports. Then afterward has difficulties with their membership. That’s unfair. If one knows up front, then it’s their problem to make the informed decision. However that it washes out for future potential groups who don’t or do care for GIO’s advocacy or don’t give a hoot, or how it affects GIO success, remains Mark’s decision and rightfully no one else’s concern. Which “fix” depends on the question I posed, is it just support? (anonymous is also support) or does he want it to be an in your face statement? Either desire, there’s a way to minimize the hardship to a future group owner. As as far as current apolitical groups (like PTA), or opposition groups - oh well. Life is what it is and hope no difficulties come of it from their membership. I kinda doubt that because once such an advocacy issue rises, on ant side, eventually it tends to magically proliferate via the partisans to all corners of the vapor. PS, the Indivisible hyperlink (does anyone still use that term?) worked for me 1st time and does now.
|
|
|
|
First, Mark can run his business any way he wants to as long as he does not break the law. Groups.io is a business, not a public service or even, as far as I know, a non-profit. As many people have pointed out, taking controversial positions and stating values is no bar to success in business.
Personally, I prefer overt and plainly stated agendas. I would rather Mark state out front what he values than keep his values a secret, make tons of money off groups.io, and then quietly support whatever it is he decides to support. With that in mind, I like the idea of a "values page" out front and obvious. As a group owner, if I have members who oppose Mark's positions, I would much rather face them openly and directly on the issue. It might decrease the size of a group, but I would rather be open. Would that decrease groups.io's profitability? I doubt it. The market's a big tent and most folks are quite tolerant of a wide range of stated values. Best, Marv
|
|
|
|
Barbara Byers
I agree with these ideas.
On 2019-05-23 09:08 AM, HR Tech via Groups.Io wrote:
|
|
|
|
Responding to Maria, Shal, et al re which’s groups are “partisan”: yes, Indivisible is partisan. No, groups.io is not partisan simply because, with all else that it does, and its primary mission, giving a small discount to a partisan group does not make it partisan. You don’t need to worry about your PTA, any more than you’d need to worry about serving Ben and Jerry’s at your PTA picnic. The semantics are being stretched beyond anything reasonable.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On May 23, 2019, at 9:13 AM, HR Tech via Groups.Io <m.conway11@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
Point of information, which I don’t want to stray into a political discussion of any/either direction, but careful with the term “non profit” and implying/inferring too much.
501(c)(4)s are not the Red Cross or Habitat for Humanity. 501(c)(4)s are PACs - Citizens United, Indivisible, a basket full of others.
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
You don’t need to worry about your PTA,That’s Pollyanna not reality when it comes to any elected board that has to answer to what might turn out to be more than one objector after the objection is raised and doesn’t quietly go away. They will have their backs against the wall and are not going to stand their ground and fight it, vs just telling Shal to change the forum to Google. No big deal they’ll say. AND it will highly depend on the leaning of the board members themselves and any personal relationship with the objectors. Real world.
|
|
|
|
Anybody can object to anything, real world or otherwise. The fact that they object doesn’t make their objections reasonable or based on reality.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
On May 23, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Ken Kloeber via Groups.Io <KWKloeber@...> wrote:
-- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.
|
|
|
|
Hi All, Thanks for the respectful discussion. Give me a couple days to figure out what I'm going to do. In the meantime, as promised, here's a picture of Feynman, preventing me from getting any work done. Thanks, Mark
|
|
|
|
Hi All, To close out this discussion, here's what I've done: - I've moved the Indivisible link (fixed!) down to the non-profit section of the FAQ. - I've added a new section to Help on types of groups that are not permitted. - I will be adding a values page, at which point I'll move the Indivisible link to that page. I'm excited about creating a values page; thank you Maria for the idea. And here's a picture of Linus, who would very much like you to feed him. Thanks, Mark
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Mark Fletcher via Groups.Io <markf=corp.groups.io@groups.io> wrote:
|
|
|
|
KWKloeber
Mark
A values page sounds delicious! Will you be "more plainly" (for want of another term/description) drawing attention to the values during sign up (to avoid the scenario of an owner (unknowingly) buying into values that members might not share)?
|
|
|
|
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:34 AM, Ken Kloeber wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. But in any case I haven't decided how I will promote the (not yet written) values page. Mark
|
|
|