too much for the New York Times?

MORE: so at least some people must be still reading this stuff

my comment (pre-posting to the site, so this time it should be identical):

Tasha & whoever else is still listening...

I don't see anything wrong with for profits that are upfront about it (people know what they are getting themselves into -- there is no deceit).

I'd like to see a law that prevents a company from starting as a NON-PROFIT, garnering huge support as such (donations, expertise, word of mouth etc.) and THEN turning for profit...

Also, if you *claim* to be for profit but with a "philanthropic mindset" (which means you will get rewarded if people believe you)... you should be REQUIRED to disclose your profits so people could see what you are made of... If the numbers add-up...again! I don't see any problem...

Delia
http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/index.html




UPDATE: Eileen West (according to her own post, "girlfriend of Craig") volunteers some info off the craigslist site re: craigslist being a for profit since 1999 and the fact that they don't *have* to disclose their profits... nothing new there...

my response (I had to recreate it again) not sure if New York Times will post it this time either... -- oh, well...) :

hi Eileen! Here is may intended response to Jay, above (it somehow didn’t get posted):
http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/12/too-much-for-new-york-times.html

it (together with the rest of my craigslist criticism blog) should clarify to you why I believe that although craigslist turned for profit in 1999, from the ethical stand point, they should have voluntarily disclosed their profits

anyways, best of luck! D.



or are they just slow to post it for some reason? or did it get lost somehow? (don't know, nor do I care too much... -- definitely not going to look into it; I just wish I wouldn't have to recreate it from memory, wasn't at home when I posted it...well... *attempted to*...)

it was a response to comment 214

I was basically saying that:

-- it *seems* to me that keeping people in the dark as to how much they profit from what was supposed to be a non-profit is the "key (hidden) reason" for craigslist's continually increasing financial success

-- if people would know the cold basic facts re:CL (especially people *new* to craigslist) it appears that they wouldn't be willing to do much enthusiastic word of mouth -- it may be still worth giving it a try if you need a job etc. -- but it would be very unlikely to continue to have the "cult" following that results in huge growth rates

--that information (how much they make in *pure profit*) would be in the open if it would have stayed a NON-profit (legally, they can get away with not disclosing that info because they are now set up as a FOR profit; morally... it's a different issue...)

-- meanwhile, the places and things they charge for are increasing... and they keep talking about their fabulous moral compass and the great customer service (you should try going in the feedback forum sometimes and see how frustrated people in need of help get -- craigslist doesn't have nearly enough people to handle the customer service needs and appears to have no intention to hire the number of people that would be needed)

there! was that so bad? I don't see how...

Delia