I find it unnerving this lack of fix and lack of communication about actions taken toward fix from HQ. These are major site issues. If these are not addressed what other vulnerabilities are not being addressed? What’s the bigger picture about the vision for the site?
I’m really disappointed in general about the sale or sale to fund expansion or whatever it is (what is it exactly?). MN supports vulnerable people as well as confident well resourced ones and I think it’s a huge shame that the founders are risking the platform by selling it off in whatever form to people who aren’t motivated towards MN by wanting to support women, but by making money. Not least because we the public (mostly women) provide the content for free.
This thread has been running for months now. I don’t understand the inertia. I wondered if there could be any link to the reported future sale of stakes in the company (who presumably in future could push to sell outright?)
I asked an AI why a company might slow down or stop its tech investment before a sale. I’m not asserting that this is what is happening here, I couldn’t possibly know.
AI suggests the following can happen, so hopefully none of these apply:
‘1. They’re minimising investment before exiting
If owners know they’re selling, they may stop putting money into upgrades, refactoring, or new systems because they won’t be around long enough to see the return. Tech investment often pays off over years, not months.
2. Short-term profit looks better than long-term health
By cutting back on development, maintenance, or infrastructure, they can boost short-term profitability (or at least reduce costs). That can make financials look cleaner to a buyer—even if the underlying tech is quietly deteriorating.
3. They expect the buyer to replace or integrate it anyway
If the likely buyer is a larger company, they may assume the existing technology stack will be scrapped or absorbed into the buyer’s systems. In that case, investing in it beforehand can feel pointless.
4. Resource drain and focus shift
Preparing a company for sale (legal work, financial audits, negotiations) consumes a lot of management attention. Tech upkeep can slip simply because leadership focus has moved elsewhere.
5. Lack of capability or fatigue
Sometimes it’s less strategic and more human—key technical staff may have left, hiring may be frozen, or leadership just doesn’t have the energy to keep pushing improvements if they’re planning to exit.
6. More concerning: trying to extract value before selling
In worse cases, owners might knowingly underinvest while continuing to draw out profits, leaving the buyer with “technical debt.” That’s not unusual in lower-quality deals, and good buyers will usually discount the price once they spot it.
The important nuance: this can backfire. Serious buyers will assess:
- technical debt
- scalability risks
- security issues
- maintenance backlog
If those are bad, they’ll either reduce their offer or walk away entirely.’