[SnorkelTan]

Stack overflow was an invaluable resource for me as a developer. I got a wealth of knowledge about a bunch of thorny problems I was encountering with out paying anything. The people who answered the questions I had were able to help far more people than they ever could have individually without SO. I’m having a hard time being upset about his financial windfall. It’s really only a bait and switch for people who answered questions with some other unstated expectation than helping others or receiving help.

[kijin]

In aggregate, Stack Overflow probably saved developers far more time than anyone ever put in, and saved companies all over the world far more money than the founders made in their exit.

[milesward]

Creating more value than you capture has ways been the jam.

[keybored]

You just need to be working class to fulfill that dream.

[fakedang]

Also saved AI companies far more effort in gathering correct code for training.

[kijin]

Not just correct code, but also a whole bunch of incorrect answers, as well as votes and comments to help weigh the trustworthiness of each answer.

[belter]

Your argument has nothing do to with the point I was trying to make.

[robertlagrant]

What was that?

[belter]

The founders monetized a platform where unpaid contributors built 99% of the value by answering questions for intangible "Reputation". The fact that contributions were voluntary doesn’t negate the issue. It highlights it.

A system designed to extract free labor for massive financial gain, while offering only gamified rewards, reflects exploitative design, not fairness.

[amrocha]

This is such an incomprehensible take. Every developer has benefited from SO. I’ve contributed to the site exactly because it’s been so good to me. I don’t need money on top of that. The website is the reward. Nobody cares about reputation.

Websites cost money to run, and I’m glad SO was so well monetized that it didn’t run out of money and get deactivated like so many of the old school forums we used to go to for help before.

[belter]

See my analogy below in this thread about the public park...

What is incomprehensible is developers confusing the value created by the site, with the means of production of said value.

While contributing to the site might provide you with some personal feelings of value, maybe even a rush of altruistic euphoria... :-) An illusory sense of digital sainthood...Your unpaid work directly enhances the value of a platform that profits from selling the collective output, including yours.

This means you’re effectively donating your expertise to a for-profit entity, with no equity or share in its success

[amrocha]

Sure, they made money off my work, I don’t mind that. That’s fine.

Your analogy about the public park is wrong btw. A better analogy is if someone ran a private park for years where musicians can come and collaborate with each other and expertly exchange ideas, and then after 20 years of running the park they sell it and move on with their life.

[nuancebydefault]

The value of unpaid work always goes somewhere.

Many sports clubs work with the help of many volunteers. If they were not available to help for free, the practitioners of the sports would need to pay more. That would mean, only the richer part of the candidates could do the sport. A side effect is as well, that the club itself gets bigger, more famous, and richer as a whole. All thanks to the help of volunteers. There is just no way around that.

In SO/Jeff's case this was beneficial for him in the form of a huge selling price. I would say luckily he was, as I read in the comments, a great contributor to the SO organisation.