Joel left, and SE as we know it is dead

Question

The recent blog post, which I don't even want to link to, made it perfectly clear for me. Joel left, and with that SE as we know it died. It will take a while before it's totally gone, but it will go eventually.

Now we already saw some cracks appear when Joel was still factually in charge, but to me it really feels that the last of the good old SE left with him.

Some things that strike me as odd:

• The new CEO mentioned that our community is the most important part of the SE network, but yet didn't have the courtesy to acquaint himself with said community. He didn't even bother to introduce himself here on MSE.

• SE as a company has grown tremendously over the last 6-8 time units, however it failed to retain the community spirit that used to be between the company and the community. It might be due to the hiring practices (hiring people with certain skills, more than people with a certain mindset).

• SE failed to hire someone that majored in community building, or even basic communication. All its communication has been really top-down lately. Which caused disgruntled META regulars, which caused a disgruntled director of Q&A, which caused disgruntled META regulars, etc., etc.

Now I know a growing company comes with all the growth pains, just as a regular teenager growing up. But I feel somewhere along the line the company lost touch with its community. And the most recent blog posting feels they have found the solution to remedy these pains by taking "the cause" away, the MSE community.

Am I the only one noticing this? What are your thoughts on this?

P. S. causation ≠ correlation

Answer 1

They're counting on us having nowhere else to go.

I can't tell you how many times in the past couple of months I've heard the "stay and fight" mantra from disgruntled meta users, especially around Monica's situation. From Sara's fake apology (which is the lowest-rated question on meta) to moderator issues (the second-most hated question on meta) to licensing issues (the fourth-most hated question on meta), it's clear they don't care about the community. They'll be facing legal issues from Monica's GoFundMe (which SE is actively deleting links to), with another possible GoFundMe for licensing issues (which SE is actively deleting links to). These movements are happening because we have public discourse, and can organize; they want to stop that.

But let's face it - we don't want to build another platform; we just want SE to participate and collaborate with us. That's the problem: they don't want the same things. We're the codependent couple that can't leave because this network means so much to us.

So they're hoping that time will make us forget about Monica; that shutting down public discourse will stop the flagrant opposition to their corporate narratives and interests.

You're right - SE is dead. Or maybe it's dying. But what else are we going to do? Where are we going to go? So long as we have no alternatives they can do whatever they want, and we'll have no choice but to go along with it. It's an age-old business tactic. It's why we have anti-monopoly laws. Because when one party can walk away and the other cannot, the one who can't leave is basically enslaved.

Look, I really, really, really, do not want to leave. I think SE could be salvaged; this is a great network! But the fact is we're not willing to consider alternatives, and they're counting on that.

Answer 2

A lot of Joel's later blog posts seemed to focus on promoting diversity and inclusivity among both Stack Overflow and computer science as a whole - reading through a lot of the comments and answers on meta, it seems this is directly at odds with what most users want SE to focus on. It's fine to argue for or against the changes imposed by SE, but stating this was caused by Joel leaving doesn't make a ton of sense.

Answer 3

Someone linked to this thread in another project I'm working on, and despite not feeling like participating here anymore, I decided to leave a few words anyway.

Joel himself tried to push down his personal opinions onto the community in at least two previous instances that I don't care enough to mention here, but I trust most of you will remember well.

Still, things are taking a turn for the worse since his departure.

As everything else is already addressed, let me just make one thing abundantly clear about your first point:

The new CEO mentioned that our community is the most important part of the SE network, but yet didn't have the courtesy to acquaint himself with said community. (...)

... because it's BS.

Sorry. But you know it's true.

Answer 4

No time for a long answer, but TL;DR: Stack Exchange as we knew it is dead, correct. But a new Stack Exchange is taking its place.

Stack Exchange is not going to be shut down, I'm pretty sure of this at this point.

So it boils down to this simple question: do you want to stick around and see what becomes of Stack Exchange? For me the answer is yes, but I'll do it carefully, and won't use new features just because SE staff say they're cool. I'll keep doing what I always did, and if/when blocked from this due to some change, leave.

Answer 5

The Third Age has ended, and the magic has waned. The new, waterproof and tamper-resistant SE has been here for a while now, with all it entails. This is just a wake-up call that it's no longer 2009; some of us may have been too busy to look up from the console to take notice.

Are you comfortable with the business model and goals of the website you're contributing to, and thus directly furthering?

Such is the way of startups: they can wither and vanish, or transform into yet another corporate clockwork. SE didn't vanish, yay.

Answer 6

I think this fixation on names resp. personalities is part of the "real" problem.

Meaning: in the end we are talking about an unwritten social contract. Years ago, different groups of people came together to turn a vision into a service helpful to a global community of users, also enabling a business for the people running and paying the servers.

Now: that mutual agreement how things should be done (for example that there is META, and that the community strives to achieve a democratic consensus), in the end, depends on the people. Sure, there are MSE posts over and over, but even when the CEO of SE Inc. promises to this or that on MSE, that doesn't matter. Because it depends on that person whether that promise will be uphold.

People change, sometimes just their stance/attitude, but especially in the business world: the role stays, but new people come in to fill it.

That is the thing: when you enter a long-term relationship with any kind of company, you can't rely on "I know these folks, and that is good enough". That is great while it lasts. But as soon as there is some change on the other side, your option space is extremely limited: you comply, or you walk away.

What I intend to say: the "community", that is just a concept. It is an undefined set of people that have (close to) zero legal leverage towards SE Inc.! Because there is no legal contract between them and us. The only thing a community member can point to is the licence used for our content, and the "terms and services" of SE Inc.. When the company is in violation of that, you could (at least theoretically) create legal trouble for them.

And there is nothing we can do about that. It doesn't matter whether the CEO is Joel Spolsky, Prashanth Chandrasekar, David Fullerton, or one day maybe Sara Chipps.

From that point of view, seriously: those of the community that are leaving, and trying to build something better: do not repeat those mistakes. It is not about trusting people. Trusting people is a good starting point, but change over time is inevitable.

Without a legally binding contract that clearly outlines the rights and duties of both sides, you are lacking that "outer wrap" that keeps things together when the road gets bumpy. And of course: there can only be a legal contract when both parties have some sort of representation. Which makes the whole situation really complicated.