[FredPret]

Turns out smart people who do hard work providing a massive public platform want to be paid for it. Who knew.

[Ericson2314]

There is no evidence these changes are instigated by regular employees. This sort of stuff is usual driven by the the owners with larger stakes.

[FredPret]

No profit = no business = no pay.

Huge profits = rich business = famously huge FAANG pay.

[Ericson2314]

Wages and profits are separate. Sure, equity vested to employees blurs that, but stock prices need not track profits either!

Employees may also rather coast than go through a stressful shakeup that quite likely won't succeed in bringing in profits.

Even if employees do want the shakeup, they are in no position to agitate for it. This would be a purely coincidental alignment of their desires with the agitating investors'.

Please understand the basics of how Capitalism works.

[FredPret]

> Wages and profits are separate Of course. But if profit is zero, wages will be zero too before long. Who cares whether your aberage employee likes profitable shakeups, I’m saying it’s in their best interests regardless.

> Please understand the basics of how Capitalism works.

My god, I hope you’re more pleasant in real life. We’re done here

[Ericson2314]

We're all more pleasant in real life :) This is the internet!

[FredPret]

Fair enough, I suppose I got a bit carried away. A little good faith goes a long way

[Nullabillity]

Funny how capitalists (or let's be honest about what they actually are, aristocrats) always seem to care more about the appearance of civility than the impact of their policies.

[adingus]

You can get paid for something without degrading its function.

[the_gipsy]

Well then don’t bait and switch.

[FredPret]

If they charged a subscription fee from day one they would have zero users. This is a valid business model

[the_gipsy]

If you do a bait and switch, then don’t come with the “they deserve to get paid” bullshit.