Lots of great updates in the latest Mastodon release, but I am particularly excited about this.
-
Raphael Lullisreplied to Raphael Lullis last edited by
And to preempt the standard "but network effects!" response: total operational costs grow with the size of the network. Unless everyone foots the bill, this is not sustainable unless the provider finds a way to exploit the user base. The message should become "you either pay with your wallet, or your labor, or your data. If you don't like the first two options, threads.net is over there."
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Raphael Lullis last edited by
@raphael @deadsuperhero "stop offering things for free"
"Unless everyone foots the bill"I definitely understand where you're coming from, sustainability should be a high priority, we've already lost some big projects and servers.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
@raphael @deadsuperhero But I am not sure if it's realistic to expect "everyone" to pay up. Those who can afford it definitely have to step up.
Mastodon team's effort to attract bigger donations was the right step -- as long as they remain independent.
Maybe charging for certain features and special access, sure. Even ad-supported servers should be fine, as long as the ads are not invasive, and ads themselves stay on the server.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
@raphael @deadsuperhero I myself share all my work for free, as I don't rely on it for income, and find it a lot more rewarding when more people get to enjoy it. And that's how I want the fediverse to be as well.
-
Raphael Lullisreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
I have a really hard time believing that the median user of the Fediverse is so strapped for cash that they can not afford a few dollars per *year*.
If anything, servers could at the very least flip the system: instead of letting users come in for free and then go chase donations from the minority, they could say "we can invite one new user for every $10 we raise. Those who contribute more can leave the accounts on the pool or invites/sponsor specific people.
-
Raphael Lullisreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
If you don't rely on it for income, it is just a hobby and the whole equation changes.
No one can demand anything from you and no one creates expectations that your work will compete with a corporate-controlled alternative.
And I don't know about you, but I want us to actually win against the corporate-controlled alternatives. It can not just be a nice hobby for a dozen people to feel good about it. This doesn't get us rid of Surveillance Capitalism.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Raphael Lullis last edited by
@raphael @deadsuperhero "it is just a hobby"
Hmm, perhaps. To me, this is my work, the thing I pour my hear into. And I acknowledge it's a massive privilege to have the time and the means for it.
And I suspect this is how a big portion of the folks active in this community sees their work here as well.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by [email protected]
@raphael @deadsuperhero I can definitely see more profit-oriented entities living in this space, as long as they remain good neighbors, but I have a feeling people's attitudes won't shift significantly. And I think we'll still make this work, people are resourceful.
-
@raphael @stefan I do think paid memberships at a low starting cost is a viable path forward for many instances. In principle, this could at least cover operational costs, and maybe even pay instance moderators a stipend.
Paying engineers, designers, and consultants is a different matter entirely, however. Yeah, a big instance charging for membership could theoretically cover part of those expenses, but they’re all extremely expensive.
-
-
@deadsuperhero @raphael And what are your thoughts on paywalling the site?
(Not a suggestion, mind you, just continuing the earlier point!)
-
@stefan @raphael I have some ideas about that, but want to do it in a way that’s fair to the community.
We don’t want to paywall everything, but it might be nice to have a handful of “Premium” articles that automatically convert to regular articles after like 30 days have passed. We never want to be that news org where every single article is paywalled, and we definitely don’t want to section off breaking news that’s pertinent to the network.
However, there’s an opportunity to do investigative deep-dives, or go really hard on more obscure subjects that might be super interesting to a dedicated niche of people.
-
@stefan @raphael I think it also hinges on what people are willing to pay for. Membership on a dedicated community server with stellar reputation and good moderation is appealing to some, but I’m not sure everybody will go for it.
On the other hand, when I think in terms of Solid, it seems like people would be all too happy to pay for things like expanded data storage, backups, maybe some kind of data sync or integration.
I think the hard part is just figuring out what things are essential that are worth paying for, when access itself is “free” or “close to free”.
-
@deadsuperhero @raphael That's all very sensible!
-
@raphael @stefan @deadsuperhero
Then you haven’t looked very far.
I’ve seen entire instances where most of the users are either on disability or otherwise living below the poverty level.
Paywalling one of the few non evil social media sites is a great way to force the impoverished into even further social isolation or into one of the lesser but at least still free options and away from here. -
@Alien_Sunset @stefan @deadsuperhero
The idea is not to paywall everything, but to push the message that (1) the Fediverse can only become a viable alternative if the *majority* of people provide material support paying for its operational costs and R&D; and (2) corporate networks that are "free" are actually exploiting you in ways that extract a lot more than a few dollars per year.
-
Raphael Lullisreplied to Raphael Lullis last edited by
@Alien_Sunset @stefan @deadsuperhero
Even if "entire instances" of impoverished people exist , it would stand to reason that they are not representative of the median user.
The median user *can* pay, but they don't. Currently ~2% of the users contribute to their instances. It could be a lot higher than this.
We could still provide assistance or exemptions for anyone that asks, or create a "sponsor" program where people can contribute a little extra to pay for those can not afford it.
-
Raphael Lullisreplied to Raphael Lullis last edited by
@Alien_Sunset @stefan @deadsuperhero
My whole argument is that "default to free (as in beer)" may seem like a good deed, but it has terrible consequences.
- It puts developers and enthusiasts of FOSS on equal footing with trillion dollar corporations who can afford to run these projects at a loss.
- It robs of the opportunity to "vote with our wallet" and support projects.
- It completely prioritizes quantity over quality, and appeals to the lowest common denominator.
-
Raphael Lullisreplied to Raphael Lullis last edited by [email protected]
@Alien_Sunset @stefan @deadsuperhero
I think that someone smarter than me will someday prove the link between the rise of populism and this homogenization of mass communication networks.
It's just impossible for quality journalism to exist in a world where we measure and reward work by the amount of eyeballs that it attracts, and a sure way to keep thinking things *should* be free because some people can not afford it.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Raphael Lullis last edited by
@raphael @Alien_Sunset @deadsuperhero
"The median user *can* pay"
I mean that's a bold claim.
- https://archive.ph/kIDuV
- https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/20/americans-are-going-into-debt-to-buy-groceries-research-finds.htmlYes, this is cherry-picked, and just for the US, but I'd like to see some evidence for your statement.
