[msluyter]

I don't know anything about the company but I applaud the sentiment. But is it obvious to note that a lot of companies start with similar ideas... and then any number of forces -- the market, shareholders, the board, management changes, black swans -- cause the screws to tighten? And then the ideals begin to erode.

I guess I'm sort of implying (without any empirical proof) that there are darwinian reasons for state of things that are inherently difficult to avoid.

[doctor_eval]

I agree, It seems like we are in a race to the bottom in which, where if we don’t target engagement in the manner derided here, we fear having our lunch eaten.

Make no mistake, I am 100% with the author here (at least philosophically), but it’s really hard to avoid in practise. In my forthcoming project, on the one hand I want to have a soft touch with users in terms of engagement, but on the other hand the wrong investors will not care. And as I learned in my previous project, you can’t always know if you have the right investors until it’s way too late.

Engagement (in the classical sense) is essential for a successful product, and I’m really hopeful that we can find, agree to, and implement limits around what we will do to manage it. But in an industry where this behaviour is the norm, it also becomes the expectation.

[Ozzie_osman]

Business models (aka incentives) are often more important than culture or intention.