|
Top-level
 If Elon Musk walked into Substack's office right now (probably with a sink) and offered them $585 million to buy it, do you think their shareholders would say "No"? Not on their life. They would be skipping for joy. Everyone who owns equity in Substack would be popping open bottles of champagne. Meanwhile, all those writers that Substack is paying will now be under Musk's thumb -- yet again. This is why the Fediverse is the better choice compared to Substack. 58 comments
@atomicpoet Further, if a company did not sell in such a circumstance, doesn't that mean they could be sued by shareholders for neglecting their "fiduciary duty"? The amount of power the rich have can not be overstated. Trying to beat them by playing their own game is a waste of effort. Thankfully there are alternative approaches. Hopefully enough of us pursue them. Some folks might be thinking, “Unlike the Fediverse, Substack gives writers an opportunity to get paid.” Not so fast. When @TexasObserver was nearly shut down because they lacked funding for operations, they turned to the Fediverse for help. Within 48 hours, we helped them raise $250,000 in funding—and now that 70-year-old newspaper still lives. As a result, 17 journalists still have their jobs. @atomicpoet @TexasObserver The issue I still have is discoverability. The homepage of Medium, for example, gives a fine selection of articles to start reading. I haven't found a Fediverse offering that manages that (yet). It's frustrating, because I imagine that should be easy with an ActivityPub feed. I can't understand why I haven't found something like that yet. @ollie_francis @TexasObserver The important question: what exactly are you trying to discover? @atomicpoet @TexasObserver Personally, I want a place where I can be given a list of long-form writing from creators and hashtags I follow without any of the short-form, quick-fire posts that tend to form the bulk of Mastodon. 🤣 “But Elon Musk could buy all 23,000 Fediverse servers and do the same thing here!” I assure you that my servers are not up for sale. And from speaking to numerous other admins, they won’t be selling either. You see, for the same reason people play basketball because it’s fun—not because they want a $50 million NBA contract—many of us run and operate Fediverse servers. But it’s amazing that some people can’t imagine doing things without a profit motive.  @atomicpoet musk must know this. Even if he was able to buy thousands of instances - which is functionally impossible - next week there would be thousands more. You can't monopolise the Fediverse. Imagine if people asked the silly “How do you make money?” question about other hobbies. “You play chess. How do you make money from it?” “You eat cheese. How do you make money from it?” “You own a cat. How do you make money from it?” Maybe I do these things for their own sake—because they give me joy. @atomicpoet then again, if someone were to offer me $50 million to stop being a satirical online “troll”, I would seriously consider it. @atomicpoet it’s under $5 million per follower. And I have some valuable followers!  @atomicpoet and even if he *did* buy all existing instances, setting new ones up is trivial and the migration between instances is possible. Also, let's put the $585m in perspective: that's ~75 times less than he paid for :birdsite:. It's about a third of :birdsite: 's annual interest payments. @atomicpoet >Imagine if people asked the silly “How do you make money?” question about other hobbies. I wish I could only imagine. I get asked the same question whenever I start a new hobby or whenever I do something for fun The difference between Substack and my Fediverse servers is that Substack has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to generate profit. I do not. @atomicpoet On a less financial point, the issue I have with it is that it's not really comparable to #twitter , it's more like a blogging platform. Which isn't, in itself, a bad thing, but it's not a twitter replacement.  @atomicpoet It's another commercial alternative, but because authors on there can monetize their work, it's going to drive journos there. But not so sure it's sustainable as people will only pay for one or two Substacks at most. @atomicpoet My partner and I own cats. Plus we run a cat boarding facility which is very profitable. @atomicpoet You make money off your cat by putting it into cat modelling. It’s HUGE in Romania. @atomicpoet maybe it’s a sign of our time? Influencers make sure that everything can be and should be monetized. I hate it. @atomicpoet This ✅ I blogged about this during the pandemic. Always nice to see someone share what I thought was a fringe opinion  @atomicpoet Everything has to be about money, don'tcha know! "You took a shit-how do you make money from it?"  actually, the only thing that Musk could do is to buy the base (mastodon/misskey/calckey/etc.). For sure, many developers (humans in general) exhibit non-financial motives. but I would not be so sure that they continue to exhibit them when financial ones are placed in the table @atomicpoet Sure, but to play devil's advocate, he could buy both Fastly and Cloudflare, kick off anybody who uses them to protect their ActivityPub server and then all these admins would be open to state-sponsored DDOS attacks.  having a place where ideas flow freely and the best can go viral no matter what the powerful/wealthy think about them, is culturally important. what Elon claimed he believed in but has proven not to. fun, sure. but this confusion over goals imo is what lets assholes like Elon justify jokes at other people's expense. humor is necessary but there's a cruelty that then muddies the water regarding just unpopular opinions and what might be true, and ultimately deters engagement. @atomicpoet if he tried then I could see some people selling out, because there will always be some. He's arrogant enough to not bother trying though, IMHO. @atomicpoet If Elon bought all 23,000 Mastodon Servers today, at least 23,000 new ones would pop up tomorrow. @atomicpoet It's not their fault they can't imagine doing anything w/o a profit. They've been raised under predatory capitalism. It's what they know.  The underlying assumption here, btw, is not as much that everything has a profit motive, but that every entity has shadowy moneyed owners who can be bought out by a zillionaire against the will and interests of the people who have been visibly working for the entity. The capitalists' euphemism for this is the vulture capital system, but in the context of other historic societies, such as Soviet Russia or Imperial Rome, it was called political patronage.  @atomicpoet I’m supportive. But I’m also kind of amazed that anyone thinks operating a server is fun. To me that would be on a par with fun visits to the dentist or happy encounters with a tax auditor.  @atomicpoet He could buy them, and we could start new servers and move to them and defederate him. What he can’t do is make me partake in his club, I won’t sit at his table.  @atomicpoet @TexasObserver that’s what building a community looks like. Humans without political borders. #WeAreTheGuardrails  @atomicpoet @TexasObserver it's a different model; because it comes from a different paradigm, some cannot process it ;-> I don't completely agree on that. it might be better in some aspects and worse in others. substack wins with respect to convenience. and many pals value convenience over ownership, control, rights @gdiak As Twitter already demonstrated, a walled garden is convenient until it’s not. @atomicpoet no, I did not... the events that are I am aware of have to do with (human) rights, free speech, fake news, etc... but I fail to see how these topics are related on how twitter may stop to be a convenient platform (at least for the majority of users) @gdiak Look at Twitter’s algorithm, which is now open source. People are punished for not buying a blue check.  |
Gregory's Server
@atomicpoet History is littered with examples of platforms that no longer exist or are irrelevant, however owning your own domain name, website and list of subscribers will always work out in the long run.