Lots of great updates in the latest Mastodon release, but I am particularly excited about this.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
Oh and for 4.4:
"our focus for the next release will be on implementing the highly requested features of quote posts, as well as the ability for server operators to subscribe to managed blocklists"
Really can't wait!
#mastodon #MastodonRelease #QuotePosts #QuoteBoosts #blocklists #fediverse
-
@stefan thank you for your work!
-
@n0toose Ah, sorry, I'm not really part of the team, just an excited fan!
-
@stefan oops!
-
@n0toose Hah, no worries, glad you're excited too!
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
Another thing to highlight:
"While other social media platforms have teams of hundreds of engineers working on them, we operate on less than 500K USD annually with a team of only 4 full-time employees, and a number of contractors."
This is very important to know and remember.
#mastodon #fediverse #sustainability #FediverseSustainability
-
@stefan This has been getting to me recently. Even the biggest projects in the space are effectively carried by a few people, living off of donor contributions and grants.
While there’s still a lot of development progress, it feels like it’s harder for projects to make big architectural changes the more their platforms mature. Some of those features, like Groups support, are substantial, and require a lot of changes at the lower levels of the stack.
-
Is it too early or can I already jump in the thread to say we could solve this problem if we collectively had the guts to stop offering things for free?
mastodon.social has ~240k MAU. If half of them paid $10/year, their revenue would more than double.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Sean Tilley last edited by [email protected]
@deadsuperhero Absolutely!
I get the sense that many assume that because of its prominence, Mastodon is somehow flush with cash.
And sure, compared to other fediverse platforms, they have a lot more resources, but considering the number of servers and people using it, and the kind of features people demand, and need, they really should be compared to VC-funded startups and companies in this space.
I'm glad they're talking about this more openly in their blog post.
-
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!)
