Real question here: is it possible to walk all this back from the edge with more ethical companies? I'm thinking co-ops, Mondragon corps, union shops, etc. Basically build businesses that have motivations other than deepening the pockets of VC's and the like, yet have some kind of growth trajectory (or federate with other corps) to gradually subsume the market.

I get that massive funding makes certain things possible, like disrupting the market, or aggressively buying your competitors. And yes, the company charter would have to be bulletproof against hostile takeover, buyouts, and enshitification, in order to go the distance. But is that really all it takes, or am I missing something huge here?

[–] suicidaleggroll@lemm.ee 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yes, by staying privately funded and not throwing everything away chasing quarterly profits

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Problem with a lot of those companies is how long they can remain privately funded and stay in business. The modern capitalistic markets inherently select for short term thinking. Think about this. Does it make any sense to destroy 90% of your profitability in 5 years to get a 20% boost in profits next quarter? In modern capitalistic markets it does, because that's 20% more profit with which to capture more market share. That's where the competition is.

[–] Jehuty@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

As someone else said, you have to remain 100% private. The second you become publicly traded, that's it.

Even then, if you want to make a difference in an established industry, you all but require preexisting deep pockets or some extremely disruptive technology that can't be easily copied.

You then have to remain steadfast in the face of the ridiculous money that will be dangled in front of you to be bought out.

There's a lot of stars that need to align.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I agree. The environment in which this must function is corrosive to the very idea, hence why I'm asking it openly here. It's a pretty dense minefield.

I'm no lawyer, but I've mused a lot about some kind of legal "dead man switch" that somehow renders the company value-less if it deviated from the intended path. Something built into the company's charter and founding documents, not unlike some kind of constitution.

[–] Jehuty@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I really don't know if you could.

Having seen OpenAI's trajectory of becoming a for-profit and not being "Open" in any serious sense of the word, I genuinely think market forces can absolutely pry open any chest they perceive as containing gold.

My personal conclusion is that you genuinely have to deal with human beings. Take federation for instance: we can try to decentralize these things and make an incredibly solid system, but we still depend on people coming to the realization that this is a good idea and adopting it for their personal/professional internet use.

Now I'm wondering if there such a thing as a decentralized private company? I can't think of anything beyond having subsidiaries in different countries, but that still requires a parent or at least a main point of contact in the form of the owner. So we're back to humans.

[–] dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world 1 points 29 minutes ago

Now I’m wondering if there such a thing as a decentralized private company?

I've been thinking about this all week. I have no idea if that exists or not. A few things sprang to mind though:

It might be possible to have lightweight companies that all adopt the same incorporation boilerplate, not unlike a computer operating system. That, in turn, would be developed by a distinct entity and would publish updates to improve said OS over time. So, open-source but for legal docs that matter. This would make companies unified in principle, but ultimately, distinct.
It's possible for companies to operate "at arm's length" but still share useful information or coordinate towards similar goals. One must be well-versed in anti-trust law to do this though.
A franchise is the only existing model I can think of that comes even close. But that's still centralized. I suppose a non-profit parent company and for/non-profit franchise operations might come closer.

[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 17 points 1 week ago

Basically, it's about the leadership.

Boeing leadership used to be exclusively the engineers who have worked their way up. They knew the ins and outs of every step, what works and what doesn't work, and therefore had a huge focus on safety because they weren't profit driven.

Then they brought in someone who wasn't an engineer and things immediately went south. I want to be cheeky and say that MBAs ruin everything because that way of management takes everything human out of management. Making that line constantly go up forever is the issue.

So, for a company to produce products that actually work, you need leadership who isn't profit driven and who actually has experience at all levels of production.