Handing over a site with user data requires a lot of trust in the new owner. If they were not vetted and turn out anot good stewards of the data (e.g. end up hacked with all the databases leaked, even if not actively malicious), some of the moral culpability lies with original owners.
User data is toxic. It's your responsibility to make sure it gets disposed of properly when winding down a failed venture.
> If they were not vetted and turn out anot good stewards of the data (e.g. end up hacked with all the databases leaked, even if not actively malicious), some of the moral culpability lies with original owners.
I appreciate your point, but I'm struck by the impression that this never results in consequences.
That's why I wrote the "moral" part there. I agree that it's basically guaranteed there will be no legal consequences, but you'll still know it was your fault.
Capital is amoral, though. Which, I appreciate your point, but it's literally not a term in any capitalist transaction. Ethics? There's a reason why people make jokes about "Business Ethics" being the shortest class in any Business major curriculum. You can advocate for inserting religion, PBCs, or any number of "hey come on guyz" strategies, but none of it carries any significance. I'd certainly like to hear of post-Industrial Revolution capitalists taking shame or guilt into account.
Creators might have another venture they want to work on in the future. Being seen as amoral could increase customer aquisition costs and lower lifetime NPV
That is a pretty heavy burden you are placing on site creators... if you follow that requirement out logically, you are going to end up with some weird consequences.
So you say you shouldn't sell your site because the new owners might mess something up and harm users; does this mean you can't ever leave a company that you start? If you leave, the new people running it after you are gone might mess things up and harm users.
How is that any different than selling the company? In both instances, you are handing full control off to someone else. Just in one case, you are turning over control to someone you chose to hire instead of someone you chose to sell to. Either way, you are making a judgment call on their worthiness.
Are you really trying to say that if you start a company and want to leave, you have to shut it down?
This also seems to imply that when people sign up to a site, they are doing so because they trust a particular individual. Most people don't even know who the people behind a site are.
I think you are making out selling your company to be a bigger moral issue than it is.
> Are you really trying to say that if you start a company and want to leave, you have to shut it down?
No, that was not at all what I said. I said that the user data is your responsibility, and you need to be careful about who you hand it over to. You've made the leap to a far more extreme position of "OMG, you can never sell or leave the company" all on your own.
If you're selling the company for real, you're evaluating the purchaser just like they're doing it diligence on the business being sold. If they're a reputable and already operating in the same space, they can reasonably be expected to handle the site responsibly.
But that's not what was being proposed in the OP. It was a suggestion to just hand the project off to anybody who wants to make a go at it, rather than shut it off. Do you really not see how irresponsible that is, and how different that is to an orderly business transaction?
User data is toxic. It's your responsibility to make sure it gets disposed of properly when winding down a failed venture.