[FLGMwt]

Oh hey, on top of the prevalent skepticism and detractions in the current discussion, I'll just throw out that, on its own, this is objectively a Good Thing.

I won't dismiss the fact that this is good PR for CAH, but it is still morally-motivated positive impact for some fixed number of people. A company took some profit they had and exceptionally distributed to some of their less fortunate customers.

Don't immediately react and reply that this is gameable. Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable.

Pause for a second and think about why this is necessarily coming from a game company that's small and makes a crude product. Think about why something like this shouldn't be coming from an entity with much more power to effect positive social or economical change.

And if you're part of one of those powers, can you do something?

[n0her0]

They offer their base product as a download for free on their main page right below the buy button and it is licensed under the Creative Commons... And they give you instructions on how to do it most easily. They are an exceptional company, and have earned fans instead of customers.

[electrograv]

> Don't immediately react and reply that this isn't scalable.

I agree that positivity is important. Certainly, let us take a moment to genuinely appreciate what they’ve done here to help 100 people!

Now, since this is such a good thing they’ve done on a small scale, let’s scale this kind of help to EVERYONE who is in need! That would be truly awesome.

Oh wait, sorry — it looks like we can’t actually have that problem-solving discussion here, because you shut down the dialog by banning the topic. What you did there — see, that is “objectively a bad thing”.

Seriously though, you cannot really expect people to shut down productive problem-solving discussion, on a forum meant for exactly that. In fact, I believe inspiring discussion and problem solving towards scaling this concept is exactly what Cards Against Humanity wants to happen as a result of this!

[FLGMwt]

Hi! Thanks for responding!

I'll admit I was dismissive in my attempt at brevity so thank you for challenging me.

I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic.

On the topic of scalability, I might been too dismissive, but I'd rather focus on the positivity of the topic as a whole, lamoon its impact, even if localized, and then secondarily bring up the topic of scalability.

I was intentionally stark because I recognize HN as being highly volatile. Top-level commentary often controls the conversation and I'd rather validate the topic than waste nuance in pessimistic challenges.

[AlexandrB]

> I didn't intend to shut down discussion. I was countering the flood of commentary around what I perceived as issues ancillary to the actual topic.

I interpreted GPs comment as an indictment of NH's policy of banning political news items, not as blaming you for shutting down the current discussion.

[Can_Not]

I interpreted it as "don't shut down discussion with low effort comments like 'it doesn't scale'".

[lobotryas]

>objectively a Good Thing

Could you please defend this assertion? They themselves admit that their redistribution method is flawed (see the FAQ).

I see this as an empty publicity stunt and something that doesn't help in the least.

[FLGMwt]

Happy to!

First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets. I think most businesses would have taken a flexible $100k USD and spent it on marketing or expansion or something. The fact that this was distributed freely to people who self-identified as having use of it is good.

Second, flawed/unfair/biased/imperfect does not mean that something can't have net gains. Just because a company recognizes and discloses their faults, that shouldn't dismiss them from credibility. I'd rather a service that promises 99.5% availability than no service at all (or worse, a service that doesn't disclose their reliability).

Third, I think that the public, publicized, monetary actions of a trendy business have an additional non-material benefit. On top of any fiscal commentary about this bit, CAH is quite popular, and they have enough financial leeway to make a statement. This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need".

Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for.

[edanm]

You're making a few assumptions that I disagree with.

'First, I chose the word "objectively" in the sense that win/wins are still possible in consumeristic markets.'

Well, I think most economists will tell you that almost every non-forced transaction in a consumeristic market is a win-win. Otherwise, it wouldn't happen! You have $x, but you want to have whatever I'm selling more than you want to have those $x, therefore we make the trade. I, alternatively, prefer the money. If there's no win-win here, then the transaction wouldn't happen in the first place.

"This statements is "we are a business. we have knowledge that some of our customers have a greater need than others. we are making a decision to help those people with greater need". Their statement is no more prescriptive than that. But damn if it doesn't make me question every other wildly profitable business, including the corp I work for."

That's sincerely very nice of them. It really is. They're giving up some of their own hard-earned money in order to give to others, and I applaud them for it.

However, don't give up on all corporations just yet. Corporations are in a very different position, at least large, public ones, because they're not wholly owned by a few people who can decide to give some of their money to charity. They're owned by huge numbers of shareholders. (A lot of which are members of the public, investing through pensions funds and the like).

Who exactly should be making the decision to e.g. donate money to charity, instead of making more money? The individual shareholders are completely free to do this with their own money, and many do - but why should the company itself do it? If I were a shareholder, I'd want the company to mostly maximize profit, then decide in private how I'd like to donate to charity. For many reasons, not least of which is that I'd probably donate to GiveWell or something similar, rather than to a few random people who happen to like CAH.

Anyway, I really can't say it better than Milton Friedman, so if you're interested, I suggest you read his words on the subjcet: https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/f...

[rficcaglia]

Having studied economics and married to a PhD in behavioral science, I would urge you to separately consider the academic utility of the models of “most economists” from real life. Economic theories and models have a lot of value, just not applied to anything to do with real humans.

Better said here [0]: “Economics is plagued by the spurious exactness of mathematics. It neglects human behaviour and grovels before its paymasters in government and commerce. Its forecasting is as much use as Mystic Meg and the astrologers.”

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/econom...

[edanm]

So instead of refuting my actual points, you're telling me that it's better I completely ignore an entire academic discipline?

Maybe economics, like most science, doesn't get everything right, and there are certainly still tons open questions. But how far would such an attitude take me for other disciplines?

[rficcaglia]

Not ignore...apply very judiciously with careful consideration of the context and assumptions.

I don't refute your points. they may be valid. they may not. I merely urge reflection that actual human behavior that directly contradicts economic models.

As to Friedman: > "there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

How's that going for the planet? While he dismisses social issues as "catchwords" we are now living with the very real repercussions.

>"The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. "

This implies that organization doesn't add any multiplier and is merely a sum of its funds. Even the market sees beyond that argument by valuing companies at multiples of its cash and assets. So he's ignoring or discounting the disproportionate impact that an organization can have far exceeding the sum of the individual actors.

> "civil servants ... must be elected through a political process.

I wonder what Mr. Friedman would think of the influence of corporate funds in the US political decision of late. Seems to blur his lines quite a bit.

>"the great virtue of private competitive enterprise–it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes."

When I was 17 I read Atlas Shrugged, too, and thought every individual could succeed on their own actions and effort. Then I lived in reality.

EDIT: typos and formatting

[dieterrams]

Hey buddy. Flawed != bad or net negative.

[Nicksil]

It helped at least 100 people.

[zild3d]

> and something that doesn't help in the least.

You spoke to the 100 people and found it didn't help them?

[nbanks]

This is definitely a good thing, especially when it's juxtaposed with Cards Against Humanity's Holiday Hole last year. It's as if they're not really against humanity after all. I wonder which publicity stunt is better for the company.

[donohoe]

+100

[jquery]

Their whole schtick is that they did some private charity work and it went great so FUCK DRUMPF AND FUCK CAPITALISM. And you’re asking people not to talk about the main point of their shtick? I won’t argue what they did isn’t good but literally thousands of charities do this every day.

[FLGMwt]

I guess I'm coming from: I feel like we're in a relatively cushy bubble so maybe let's talk bubble-external impact?

I think this is a good thing that a private company is doing. They're benefitting from PR, but they're also using their stance on the capital and renown front to make a statement that it's cool to help out people who need help. Oh and also they're using their own cash to do that.

They didn't say fuck anyone and they didn't say fuck capitalism.

If anything, they're optimizing for capitalism: "people who care about the emotional plight of individuals in need would probably react positively to us publicly helping them out... and be more likely to buy our product."