How can they be so obvlivious though? Their own blog post doesn't even mention the tarnished reputation Zoom has acquired lately.
A lot of people will stop developing integrations for Keybase because of this. It's sad.
A lot of people will stop developing integrations for Keybase because of this. It's sad.
The post is actually refreshingly honest that keybase is now abandoned and will probably die at some point.
The idea that companies were stupid enough to place their internal identity on some random 3rd party is so incredibly stupid that it’s hard to feel too bad for anyone.
Congrats Keybase!
I miss the days when businesses existed not just to serve investors but also their employees and the common good. It's like a 1%-er meta profit model where the actual business is in buying and selling the business and the core business is really just a temporary front that is designed to never make a profit, just create fancy looking charts and eventually bait and switch consumers when it is sold to the highest bidder and the employees all eventually lose their jobs.
One day, VC funding will either be illegal or required. considering the flow of money in this exchange, I'm betting on the second.
Uh when was this? For-profit businesses have always been created for the primary purpose of making money. Any side effect like employee well being happened to coincide with what maximized profits at the time or due to regulation.
I'm a big fan of business and entrepreneurship, but let's be clear here: there is a reason we invented government. There was never a time when we could 100% count on the beneficence of business leaders to advance social goals.
Edit to add: I'm not trying to demonize all business leaders here. There are some bad actors, but even business leaders who desire to do well have to succeed in the marketplace--even against bad actors. Unfortunately, doing bad things in business often confers the benefit of lowering costs, which is a competitive advantage. This is a known structural issue with a marketplace economy and why we need more than just business to have a good society.
So really, it's not that "there are some bad actors", but that "the system strongly encourages businesses to install these so-called bad actors as their leaders". I agree with you, that we need strong government labor regulations to counter this mentality, but this mentality is why these regulations have deteriorated over the past 50 years.
I'm sorry, but this is just not true. If it was legally mandated, then the Costco CEO would not have been able to resist such shareholder demands. Your example proves the opposite of what you think it does.
Nothing has changed in the legal structure of corporate governance since 1970. Do you think that investors never demanded greater returns from business leaders prior to 1970?
They can still demand all they want, but the law remains clear today that corporate directors and managers have the power to run the business as they see fit, and shareholders' sole remedy for their disappointment, in the absence of outright fraud or gross negligence, is to sell their stock.
In February 2014, Tim Cook was the CEO of one of the most valuable companies in the world. At Apple's shareholder meeting, he directly told his shareholders that he does not even consider ROI in some of his decisions. Legal consequences to Apple and Tim Cook for this statement? Zero. He's still CEO. Because there is no legal mandate to maximize corporate profits.
Honestly, by buying into this myth that the law changed in the 1970s, you're lending power to a fake idea that you seem to be opposed to. There is a group of people who wish such a mandate existed, and by acting like they're right, you're kind of helping them.
Business leaders might make anti-social decisions because they feel competitive pressure to succeed in a marketplace where customers are free to choose and are price-sensitive. That's not nearly the same thing as saying that corporate governance law forces them to make such decisions. It doesn't.
"All but" is handy phrasing if you're trying to create the impression that something you prefer is true. If you don't prefer it, I think that using that phrase is like shooting yourself in the foot rhetorically.
I think it's more constructive to point out that such a mandate does not exist (regardless of what some shareholders seem to believe), and there are good reasons it doesn't.
Here is a link that showed up in google for me when I tried to find support of this claim: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...
Literally they bought an army and took over India for money.
> cotton, silk, indigo dye, salt, spices, saltpetre, tea, and opium.
Surely access to those provides some benefit other than making money, which it also did for them.
Also worth noting that not every company is ... that one.
This is an utterly meaningless distinction. Money is fungible with all of those goods.
Anyway, if you want to go down that path you can easily conclude that literally any good or activity is just money, that you live a money-dominated life and we all exist for money all the time and while useful in some contexts I don't think it's particularly apt, but I hope you enjoy it.
In the grand context of life, no (despite the vast majority of large scale events that we learn about in history being usually a result of conflict over money/power) , but in the context of business, as this thread is, yes in a for-profit business literally every good and activity is about money.
Some businesses may choose to sacrifice money for things like employee well-being or community contribution, but that's a choice they make, or more likely are forced to make.
I think you need to read a little more history. People haven't changed their core nature in the past 40 years. Look at Carpetbaggers, the Triangle Shirtwaist company, and William Hearst for relatively recent examples. Further back you can look at The Dutch East India Company, the Knights Templar, and the various and sundry monopolies that have arisen throughout history.
People are driven to acquire capital initially to meet their own needs, then for power. There always have been people and groups of people who strive for the latter, not being satisfied with the former. Romanticizing long dead business owners may play well in movies and books, but it isn't reflective of human nature.
One day, revenue models will either be illegal or required. Considering the outflow of users in this exchange, I'm betting on the second.
Look up Joseph Rowntree[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rowntree_(philanthropis...
"Yes, we sold our previous 2 businesses. But I want to point out that (1) neither of those sales ever hurt (and arguably both sales greatly helped) our users, (2) Keybase deserves special consideration which we are aware of, and (3) both Max and I are happy in a world where we never try to sell a company again, and only build things we like."
I feel silly for falling for it too. Even very wealthy people enjoy extra money.
I'd say, don't overestimate the tarnished reputation (= some news stories for a while, most didn't read or care about -- including corporate users).
And of course they wouldn't get into it in a press release/blog post for an unrelated to the issue acquisition! Doesn't make sense to sabotage themselves this way...
This seems like an extension of that. If anyone has thought a lot about multi-party encrypted communication it is the keybase folks.
I'm interested to know if you thought keybase doing the whole unsolicited Initial Coin Offering was a reputation tarnishing or polishing event for that company. (I'm circumspect about both of these outfits to be honest.)