 Platforms like #Twitter, #Facebook, #LinkedIn etc are all business that NEED to grow since we, the user are the products. Revenue should not be a goal of a social platform, there are enough websites out there already who squeeze you for every penny in some form. The internet wasn't created for profit alone but it seems many have forgotten.. Let's bring that back! :fediverse: 46 comments
@beholder20 @stux I mean, there doesn't HAVE to be one for the overall #fediverse or for #mastodon or for an individual instance... But running an instance, especially a big one, sure isn't free. @tw @beholder20 @stux many servers run on community donations - sometimes monthly. A lot of volunteer labor. @tw @beholder20 @stux The core devs get about $12k per month from patreon: https://social.wake.st/@liaizon/109293515961070211 I chip in q dollar a month to my own server. @derek @tw @beholder20 @stux @beholder20 @tw Donations from the community ❤️ see our about page for example: @stux @beholder20 sure. I started DynDNS as a community-supported donation-based service. It is REALLY hard to make that scale and still be sustainable. @stux @beholder20 I don't mean to be s**ting on anyone's parade. It clearly is working in many instances. I'm more trying to have thoughts / start conversations on expanding the ways we do it, because I think some additional options are going to be necessary for really explosive growth. the/an additional option would be #platformcoop model. The instance I'm on, #socialcoop, is funded and managed by its members. This model also immediately reframes any problems or suggested improvements from "THEY should do something about this" to "How do WE budget for and address this".  @tw @stux The great thing about the fediverse is that since instances and users are distributed, costs are distributed. So some servers might be funded by individuals, others collectively, still others by patreon, etc. I assume at some point, there may be instances where you pay to join, who knows. And by now, open source business models are pretty well established (far from perfect, but are other models?)  @pearlbear I feel like ad supported instances should exist. It's a fair way for both instance owners and users to cover their costs without having to put any money in themselves. The problem is when the goal becomes making as much money as possible   @pearlbear @tw @stux Some will succeed, some will fail long term — digital Darwin in action.  @stux Web 2.0 is reaching its dotcom bubble burst point, now that anyone can set up a social media platform just like suddenly anyone could create a webpage, they are finding themselves way overvalued and scrambling to figure out how to stay relevant and both are failing badly.
I attended a zoom talk yesterday on "decolonializing psychology." It had a welcomed "heart" component. I asked the speaker, in essence, "What can we do?" He suggested, 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 "𝐼," 𝑙𝑒𝑡'𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑘 "𝐼/𝑚𝑦 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦." @stux I like money though - could a community eventually be run like Alaska and have a portion of the revenue from natural resource extraction go back to the local population? @stux I've always thought it funny (and not in a ha-ha way) so many people didn't realize the users are the commodity on those sites. Mastodon is such a breath of fresh air. And the people of SDF are doing an amazing job of catching up to the influx -- on a weekend, no less. It's all giving me so much hope. #community #civility #conversation @stux In my opinion, the problem isn't companies trying to make money. After all, we all have to contribute and make a living somehow. The problem was (and to some extent still is) the intentional lack of transparency in how the transaction works. First luring us in with free access, to then capitalize hard on our grown dependency. I believe there should always be a free open town square. Public domain, like roads. And also, that there can be room for paid communities, with clear transactions.  @rogierz @stux I see this misconception a lot, and I understand where it comes from. It seems reasonable that a non-profit is run by volunteers, while a for-profit has employees, but many non-profits have a core of paid workers. Profit is not the money used to pay employees, it’s money given to the owner or shareholders for being the owners. Those who run non-profits can sometimes have salaries comparable to private industry CEO’s, like goodwill’s ~260k for their CEO @Shredd_Tone @stux technically it’s hear hear, like you hear. Lol it’s not important haha  @stux I'll second that anytime. Social platforms should be subsidized by our governments -- by the people -- and should be open and free for everyone. Platforms owned and operated by billionaires should never have happened in the first place. @stux I’ve worked for not-for-profits most of my working life involved in building parts of #Internet for #academia. National Research & Education Networks (#NRENs) enable international cooperation enabling academics & researchers to fully collaborate on a equal basis with peers wherever they happen to be located. It drives #discovery, #innovation & ultimately global prosperity for the public good. Read more: https://casefornrens.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Case-for-NRENs.pdf @stux Hi stux. I'm one of the newcomers, #twitterRefugees perhaps, and I wrote a thing. Boost if you like it. Thanks. |
Gregory's Server
@stux We're not even the product -- we're the resource to be exploited to create revenue for advertisers. (See Zuboff, *Surveillance capitalism*)
"Human resources" gets a very different feel to it. The veil is lifted...