Ecosia's founders have legally restructured the company to prevent it from ever being sold, even by future owners. This ensures that Ecosia's profits will always be used to plant trees and pursue its environmental mission. The change involves a new legal structure called a "steward ownership model" and a purpose foundation that holds all voting rights. This effectively makes selling Ecosia for profit impossible, guaranteeing its long-term commitment to environmental sustainability.
Ecosia and Qwant, two European search engines prioritizing privacy and sustainability, are collaborating to build a new, independent European search index called the European Open Web Search (EOWS). This joint effort aims to reduce reliance on non-European indexes, promote digital sovereignty, and offer a more ethical and transparent alternative. The project is open-source and seeks community involvement to enrich the index and ensure its inclusivity, providing European users with a robust and relevant search experience powered by European values.
Several Hacker News commenters express skepticism about Ecosia and Qwant's ability to compete with Google, citing Google's massive data advantage and network effects. Some doubt the feasibility of building a truly independent index and question whether the joint effort will be significantly different from using Bing. Others raise concerns about potential bias and censorship, given the European focus. A few commenters, however, offer cautious optimism, hoping the project can provide a viable privacy-respecting alternative and contribute to a more decentralized internet. Some also express interest in the technical challenges involved in building such an index.
Summary of Comments ( 113 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43317887
Hacker News users generally praised Ecosia's commitment to its mission, viewing the legal restructuring as a positive move. Some expressed skepticism about the long-term viability of the business model and wondered how Ecosia would adapt to future challenges without the option of selling. Others questioned the specific legal mechanisms employed and compared them to other charitable structures. A few commenters also raised concerns about potential future leadership changes and how those could impact Ecosia's stated commitment. Several users shared their personal experiences with the search engine, generally positive, and discussed the tradeoffs between Ecosia and other search options.
The Hacker News post discussing Ecosia giving up its right to ever be sold has a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the implications of the "steward ownership" model and comparing it to other organizational structures.
Several commenters express skepticism about the long-term viability and enforceability of this model. One commenter questions how this structure protects against a hostile takeover, pointing out that the foundation could still be pressured or legally compelled to sell. They also raise concerns about the potential for mission drift over time, even with the steward ownership in place. Another echoes this sentiment, suggesting that dedicated individuals can be replaced, and the legal framework might not be sufficient to indefinitely prevent a sale if significant financial incentives arise in the future.
There's a discussion about the potential limitations of the steward ownership model for scaling and adapting to changing market conditions. One commenter argues that the inability to sell might hinder Ecosia's growth by limiting its access to capital or preventing it from merging with a larger entity. Another counter-argues that this structure might actually be beneficial in the long run by forcing the organization to focus on sustainable growth and long-term value creation, rather than short-term profits.
A few commenters draw parallels to other organizational structures, such as cooperatives and non-profit organizations. One suggests that Ecosia's model resembles a perpetual purpose trust, designed to preserve a specific mission over time. Another mentions the limitations of traditional non-profit models, which can sometimes be bureaucratic and inefficient.
Some comments focus on the practical implications of Ecosia's commitment. One commenter asks about the specifics of the legal structure and how it will be enforced. Another questions how Ecosia plans to attract and retain talent without the possibility of equity-based compensation.
Overall, the comments reflect a mixture of admiration for Ecosia's commitment to its mission and pragmatic concerns about the long-term effectiveness of the chosen legal structure. There's a general recognition of the innovative nature of the approach, but also a healthy dose of skepticism about its ability to withstand future pressures and challenges.