I read SO (pun intended) much negative stuff about the company behind Stack Overflow, that I am starting to wonder if Stack Overflow is dying. It seems to me that most people in the community are very negative about this platform. Most of this stuff is somehow related to the resignation or firing of moderators. Every story is the same: they blame bad politics and misbehaviour of the company's staff. Is the company behind Stack Overflow really that bad?

Here are some examples (I read a lot of negativity, also between the lines):

And from this last link:

We would like to see the company explicitly acknowledge and apologise for the shortcomings and failures that have occurred - the lack of bidirectional communication, the mishandling of situations, the failures to address the pain of marginalized and disadvantaged groups, and the unseemly willingness to speak to the press about matters of user moderation that do not need to be spread outside the network.

This looks severe! Can somebody explain what is going on and/or shed some light on the future? Is an Exodus upon us? Starting an alternative platform with 800 mods looking for a fair environment seems feasible/realistic. Is this likely to happen?

  • 28
    "Is the company behind Stack Overflow really that bad?" - A company is not really something that does things. People are. Now, let me rephase it as "Are the people behind Stack Overflow really that bad?" - And I think that the hundreds of questions about that are more than enough to make it clear what seems to be the answer. – Victor Stafusa Dec 3 '19 at 0:07
  • 3
    I'd refrain from downvoting this post - don't let your opinions get too much of a hold of you. This is an honest question about the future of the company and I think it should be treated as such. – connectyourcharger parted ways Dec 3 '19 at 0:26
  • 5
    @VictorStafusa, I'm not sure that's true in all cases. Oftentimes companies have things like contractual obligations, the need to make enough money to stay in business, etc., that oftentimes cause the people within those companies to make decisions they wouldn't otherwise make. – Nate S. Dec 3 '19 at 0:27
  • 17
    Alright, but is this question really any different than "Is [your favorite technology] dead?" Questions like this objectively have no answer. – user102937 Dec 3 '19 at 1:43
  • 1
    The exchanges are not living organisms. It's not outright clear what dying would mean in this context. At the very least this question should define that clearly one way or other to become answerable. But even then it might be too opinionated because nobody really knows the future. The truth is that nobody knows. It could be dying or it could not. – Trilarion Dec 3 '19 at 8:00
  • 3
    Start here and read up. Also worth to know that the "mod incident" is just the last in a unfortunate serie of avoidable events - so part of the anger you are seeing is due to users being already annoyed even before all of this started. – SPArcheon Dec 4 '19 at 8:57
  • Public companies are practically required to behave as total psychopaths, caring about only money. – biziclop Dec 4 '19 at 10:16
  • 4
    @biziclop, (a) that's not actually true; and (b) SO isn't a public company. – Peter Taylor Dec 4 '19 at 15:56
  • stack overflow is dying by definition :D - in fact, it's overflow – Sławomir Lenart Jul 14 '20 at 16:12

At the moment, you may be seeing a lot of bush fires because of the recent events. This is obviously disconcerting to the regulars around here and any newcomers - who wants to look at bush fires all day?

I think it is still too early to predict what will happen next - this is very much still a live situation - but there is no doubt that these recent events will absolutely change the network in some way. Whether this is a good or bad change is up to you to decide.

  • Who do you mean by "you" in your last sentence? OP I'm guessing? In what way is it up to that person to decide if the changes are good or bad? – OmarL Dec 4 '19 at 8:59
  • 1
    @Wilson that all depends on perspective. For example question by a newcomer can be seen as low-quality by the regulars, whilst others regard it as a fair question. So whether rule changes regarding question quality are perceived helpful or harmful will depend on your perspective. – Luuklag Dec 4 '19 at 10:45

Yes, it's dying. It's not dead yet - and won't be for the foreseeable future. The company and the site can coast for a decade on the content contributed: if you want a prediction, this won't be an abrupt change: rather a slow descent into obscurity, which could take another decade. But there's no going back: the changes that SE has effected throughout 2019 are already done, and the new course has been set for a while - "optimize for sand, not pearls".

To clarify: the problem is not with specific toggles or policies, but in the abrupt and arbitrary changes: "we feel that we should have this license today, WTFPL tomorrow, and you might be required to stand on your head next week, depending on our whims." For the most part, the company is under no obligation not to do this; but also nobody is under obligation to stay, and it has been driving users out already. Tweaking policies, or even reversing them outright is easy: bringing users back...isn't.

  • 1
    "there's no going back" That would imply that the changes are irreversible. So far, I would say that nothing that happened is really irreversible. It's quite unlikely though that the company will change course in the foreseeable future. At least there are no signs of it. But maybe, if activity or revenues fall, there might be a going back of some sort. The future will tell. – Trilarion Dec 4 '19 at 11:42
  • 1
    @Trilarion The changes have already driven away many users, including moderators; how do you propose to reverse that? Moreover, does the treatment given to Monica Celio sound reversible to you? Not every change is a toggle away, some have consequences which you can't just git reset --hard HEAD~2 – Piskvor left the building Dec 4 '19 at 11:53
  • 8
    To quote Jeff Atwood: "Without a community of people willing to answer questions, it really doesn’t matter if there are questions at all, does it?" – Piskvor left the building Dec 4 '19 at 11:54
  • 1
    Also to quote Jeff Atwood: "Get some context, folks!" (as in "why are you guys so mad at us for changing the content license without consulting you first? We already did that before, years ago and no one complained!"). So... yeah. – Marc.2377 Dec 4 '19 at 12:21
  • 4
    Also context: "Are you comfortable with the business model and goals of the website you're contributing to, and thus directly furthering? " blog.codinghorror.com/are-you-a-digital-sharecropper – Piskvor left the building Dec 4 '19 at 12:27
  • 10
    The license is not a matter of consultation ("hey, do you like what we did?"); it requires contributor consent ("hey, may we do this?"). Plus: "you didn't catch us last time" is not a carte blanche for further violations. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/… – Piskvor left the building Dec 4 '19 at 12:29
  • 1
    Thank you for the link to the question "Firing mods and forced relicensing: is Stack Exchange still interested in cooperating with the community?" It helped me to understand the problems that OP is referring to. – mgkrupa Dec 4 '19 at 20:04
  • 1
    @Piskvor I know, that's exactly my point. Sorry for not making it clear. – Marc.2377 Dec 5 '19 at 2:07

Is Stack Exchange / Stack Overflow dying?

In case it is not clear enough from the rich amount of evidence you managed to reference in OP:


Or not quite. The platform will continue to exist for a long time, as will the company behind it.

But the platform as we all came to know and appreciate over the years... yes, it is dying.

I, for one, would be extremely surprised to be proven wrong on this.

Can somebody explain what is going on and/or shed some light on the future?

Not me, sorry. I advise you read over the other posts and draw your own conclusions.


It isn't. Stack Overflow captured so many good questions/answers, so it can survive without community contribution at all.

Which means that, unless people start actively deleting their content from this site, the company is fine.

EDIT as @FrédéricHamidi pointed out, there is a limit on how many posts you can delete, so my second point is not a practical option.

  • 7
    Our content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 (or 2.5, or 4.0, depending on the phase of the moon). We cannot delete it. – Frédéric Hamidi Dec 4 '19 at 9:11
  • 12
    Seems you are assuming that nothing new will ever happen in tech. What's wrong with that assumption, I wonder... – Lundin Dec 4 '19 at 9:12
  • I still see delete button. While they can remove it, it is here right now. – talex Dec 4 '19 at 9:13
  • 1
    @talex, try deleting a few of your answers on SO in succession and see what happens (IIRC, the threshold is 5). – Frédéric Hamidi Dec 4 '19 at 9:14
  • @Lundin no. But they have enough valuable content now. It will become absolete at some point, but it will happen in distant future. – talex Dec 4 '19 at 9:16
  • @FrédéricHamidi didn't know that. So they fine then (until content get obsolete). – talex Dec 4 '19 at 9:21
  • 2
    When it's obvious someone deleted their posts just as revenge or without a real reason, a moderator will undelete and suspend the user if it keep going. – Shadow The Vaccinated Wizard Dec 4 '19 at 9:56
  • 6
    Sure, but 800 mods and a thousands of users will create a new SO in no-time. – JoostS Dec 4 '19 at 10:38
  • 2
    @JoostS SO have 18,619,175 questions right now. It took many years to get them. I doubt it is possible to replicate that in "no-time". – talex Dec 4 '19 at 10:41
  • 7
    @talex you could duplicate them into your new platform if you wish, as long as you give proper attribution. – Luuklag Dec 4 '19 at 10:46
  • 3
    Great... scraping for the win ;-)! And besides: 90% procent of the questions have no traffic. You only need the questions with traffic. Also... who cares!? If people on this new SO will answer your question, then that is automatically the new place to ask, right? – JoostS Dec 4 '19 at 10:54
  • 2
    @JoostS, more like just downloading the archive copy. – Luuklag Dec 4 '19 at 10:54
  • 3
    I remember the w3schools bashing... Although I did not like that, it was pretty effective. Nobody dared to answer a question with a link to w3schools. This could be similar. If nobody dares to answer on SO and everybody links to the new platform, SO is history. How about a new name... 'allyourbase.com'. Or is that too old-school? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us – JoostS Dec 4 '19 at 10:57
  • 4
    @JoostS That's a good point, and an interesting analogy because a) W3S did respond to the criticism a little: they fixed the glaring mistakes and there was a small but notable increase in quality; b) they are still quite high in search rankings. It would take a long time for some intiative like codidact.org to surplant SO but in the last couple of years I've already seen colleagues' attitudes change from being proud of their SO profiles to it being a guilty secret with a growing attitude of "If your problem is so trivial it can be answered on SO, you've already failed". – user56reinstatemonica8 Dec 4 '19 at 11:15
  • 1
    @user56reinstatemonica8: That, in itself, could be seen as a victory: one of the core reasons of SO, fullfilled: the answer is already there and simply discoverable. Humans are tool users, remember, and SO is such a tool. OTOH, I've had issues getting more specific questions answered...this gem is ancient already: stackoverflow.com/questions/4502656/how-to-sort-my-paws – Piskvor left the building Dec 4 '19 at 15:38

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .