from Lumberjacked@lemm.ee to fediverse@lemmy.world on 25 Feb 2025 17:31
https://lemm.ee/post/56608413
I use Bluesky and Mastodon. Mastodon better hits where I want the fediverse to go but Bluesky is so much easier to use. Signup, UI, flagship app, feeds, and content is just so much less of a headache. But it feels like it’s a matter of time before it’s enshittified.
I was thinking about how much I hate big tech but there’s a lot of small and mid-size companies that I have neutral to positive views on. Canonical, Mozilla, 37 Signals, Odoo are the ones that come to mind. All of those have a revenue model but also actively support open source initiatives and developers. None are perfect but better than “big tech” and get more done than just donation based development.
It feels like there needs to be some for-profit companies (without ads and maintaining privacy) that can help support the development around ActivityPub and maintain apps and servers that are easier to onboard and easier to use. Does this exist?
What could be some non-evil revenue models? I pay $20/month for a blogging platform for my business website. Maybe have a service to host AP servers for businesses or journalists? Personal private encrypted cloud services like photo backups that are integrated with AP?
threaded - newest
Regardless of the size of the sponsor, commercial sponsorship would be fine, as long as they don’t post ads or try to influence the content in any way.
Unfortunately, that’s a combination that likely will never happen. Imagine if Reddit never had ads or bowed down to corporate pressure. That’s not a viable business model for a capitalist organization.
I don’t even mind ads that much, for me it’s more about the algorithms that push certain agendas and are not open source (for ads and content alike)
That’s hard. I like an algorithm I can control. Maybe could do ads in search only. I don’t know. Kind of hate ads.
Let’s look at email as a history example, google gobbled up everyone for gmail.
If fediverse goes the way of email where it infinitely will grow and compete for the most part eventually businesses offering instances as services will be the norm, we can just jump ahead and try to it right before big tech starts to gobble it up.
Businesses already offer that like elestio
Elastio seems to be a devops platform as opposed to a standalone “buy my service to get a feature rich access to the fediverse or mastodon or peertube specifically, whatever” service like the typical email service providers nowadays
To add to the initial comment, the reason why we would want this is the same reason why we should be donating to instance admins, it only gets more competitive and more work involved the bigger the fediverse gets and the more competitive it gets with offering unique experiences
.
You could do a for profit without investors. Any profit goes back to employees and paying users. Make it the operating agreement from the get go and no one could come in.
Non profit in many places means you can’t sell a service. So you rely on donations. Which means you’re constantly asking for donations.
.
Yeah but Valve is centralized ownership still. One guy has majority and that makes a difference. A coop could be customer led from get go. 51% customers 49% employees or something like that.
The point being if you structure it as for profit you can charge for things and build a good product. You can make rules that says 100% of the profits have to be redistributed and no one can change that. It’s how many farm co-ops work.
Even non-profits aren’t immune to hostile takeovers. OpenAI is a for-profit company controlled by a non-profit, and that hasn’t stopped them from turning into something indistinguishable from a regular for-profit company. They’ve also been making noise about abandoning the fig leaf of the non-profit.
Mozilla is another one where nominally they’re a for-profit controlled by a non-profit, but they’re now getting into shoving ads in your face just like any other company.
It is harder to turn bad when you’re a non-profit but not impossible, without something of a poison pill that makes it unacceptable to for-profit takeovers.
.
FIFA is a non-profit. Doesn’t exactly make them a good organisation.
.
Valve is a company with $BILLIONS in revenue per year. The problem is the size of the corporations, not the profit incentive.
I think we need more companies, but each of them smaller in headcount and customer base. For the Fediverse, this is perfect.
To illustrate the point: all I really want from Communick is to get to 10000 paying customers. That would bring $300k in revenue, I would be able to draw a good salary from it (still less than any drone from Big Tech makes though), make good on my pledge to give 20% of profits to developers, hire some people to help with moderation and so on…
Notice that 10 thousand users is less than 1% of the current amount of people in the Fediverse, if we had half of the users interested in this model, it would mean that there is room for (at least!) another 50 small businesses like mine, which is more than enough to have a healthy competition around.
Yeah I regret commiting to a pc steam library, its just as bad as going console
I think there’s a difference in definitions, as well as difference between non-profit/not-for-profit and charities. As far as I know what your described is a non-profit and a non-profit can sell services.
You just described a normal non-profit, but doomed. Lol.
Organizational committment to remaining non-profit seems to be critical to the recipe.
How do you decide “what they deserve”? What should be the payment for a moderator, or an instance admin? What of you have someone also making contributions to the software and as such is in a position to add features exclusive to one instance?
.
In a centrally-planned system? Yes, it is very hard.
I assume you mean that you had to give a quote to a client?
If that is the case, your client has sole decision-making power and has “only” to evaluate whether the price you were asking for your labor is lower than the value you’d be bringing them.
How does this compare with a coop, where (presumably) the member-owners have all to agree on the price of labor? Are they going to accept to pay market rate for the people working there? Are they first find whoever is willing to work for the cheapest and then set the price on that?
.
The fact that they exist does not imply that they were ever able to serve their community/customers/users universally. You either get some people being served well at an inefficient overall cost, or you get everyone being served poorly by a broken system which can not afford to provide adequate resources to workers.
IOW, I’m not arguing that “coops” can not exist. What I am arguing is we will never get rid of Big Tech if we keep forcing the idea that only community-owned services are acceptable models of governance.
.
Putting these two in the same bag is a mistake, this is what OP and I are saying.
Context and scale matters. Even though both small and big companies depend “on profit”, the methods they use and incentives that drive them are wildly different.
.
Of course the scale of the business matters. If scale doesn’t matter, a bunch of farmers selling their produce at a local market would be bad for their local community as Walmart.
.
And OP and I are saying that this generalization is shortsighted. You end up putting on the same bag:
By treating them as equal because “both of them are seeking profit”, you are left with an economic system that is unable to grow to match the demands of the people.
I did, many times. It’s just that you don’t want to hear it.
The point is “Community is not enough” (I did link to the blog post, didn’t I?) and I’ve been saying since 2022 that the Fediverse will not be able to grow until is dominated by this belief “that every profit-seeking business is bad and therefore should be rejected”.
You can be mad at me all you want, you can be upset at this sad reality all you want, you can cry in a pillow all you need, but you can not say that the Fediverse has been a success story. We’ve had so many opportunities handed out to us to take this place and grow to become a viable alternative for everyone but we squander it every time because the loud minority of ideologues keep screaming “no businesses here!”.
.
If you are not angry, you are certainly reading as someone who is facing an amygdala hijack. Your responses do not seem as someone who is collected and you do not seem willing to listen to what others are trying to express.
Case in point:
You are right, we are talking only about the features they share (i.e, profit-seeking) and whether this means that they should be treated equally. I didn’t say they were completely different. But do they have to?
Let me try again: you are asserting that a small-scale farmer who works out on their own volition and makes a living by selling their produce at a higher price that it cost them (i.e, seeking profit) is a net-negative to society and as unethical as a huge corporation like Walmart. You are saying “the scale doesn’t matter, any one working looking for profit is bad”. Is this correct or am I misrepresenting you?
.
Look, I am sorry. I didn’t mean to offend you and I didn’t mean to “diagnose you”. You asked me why I was responding as if you are angry, and I tried to illustrate how your responses are sounding on this side of the conversation. I might be completely wrong, but this is how I am perceiving it.
.
Look, I already apologized and I mean it. I will just ask you now to reread the thread. You are stating that any independent service provider is as morally bankrupt as a large corporation like Meta. Don’t you think that is also not at all insensitive and offensive?
…have we?
.
What does “implemented” mean?
.
Buddy theres no song and dance unless it’s the one you’re doing where you’re refusing to answer basic questions about things you’ve said.
.
I don’t know why you’re treating me like a piece of shit for nothing more than trying to understand more about the words you wrote but I suppose I’ll stop doing that.
.
Who hurt you?
.
I don’t see why you’re being so hostile to him. I also didn’t know this about a livable wage. I didn’t know we were doing studies on it and thought that it actually referred to a subsistence wage.
I would actually usually say I don’t like the term livable wage and think we should say “respectable wage” instead. It looks like they mean the same thing, though.
This is a great question and something we shouldn’t shy away from considering.
As far as hosting a mastodon instance? That’s something that should be done for free with the only income being donations.
These people do it because they want to. It’s not necessarily “work” for them, which is why they do it for free anyways. It’s also sustainable. As more users join their instance, costs for hosting will increase but so should donations. It’s not that expensive to host servers, despite what some conpeople and their useful idiots may have told you. (don’t assume you know the costs of hosting if you’ve never done it yourself.)
Admins get a lot of power that they have no problem abusing, either. This alone would make me a moron for even considering paying them for it.
“Yeah bro, I’m gonna pay you to host your instance where you have absolute control and can censor anything you don’t like.”
This is fun for them. That’s why they do it.
There is not a single Mastodon &server out there that have increased donations or reach a sustainable level after they reach a few thousand users.
Also, there are not enough admins around “doing it because they want to” if we want the Fediverse to grow a few millions users.
Instagram has 2 billion users, Pixelfed largest instance has less than 200k active users. We would have to get 10 THOUSAND admins in order to compete with Instagram.
Are you referring to active users, or just accounts-made? If you’re referring to active users, then can you point to any Mastodon instance with thousands of active users and the donations they receive?
If you’re referring to accounts made, then you don’t really have a point because thousands of accounts are unlikely to substantially increase server costs unless they’re all active (see above).
Are you joking? There’s no “shortage of instances” going around. As more people join the Fediverse, more admins will start instances. This is a non-issue.
In fact, I’d wager the vast majority of instance-owners are bored, twiddling their thumbs due to their lack of users.
See above.
Newsie.social has (had) 20k active users, mostly professional journalists. It has been threatening to shut down due to lack of funding for two years already. Every month their admin needs to beg around for people to donate.
Fosstodon started with enough donations that they could even send some of their money to upstream projects. Nowadays they are invite-only because they don’t get enough funding to sustain infinite growth.
Moth.social was active while they were sponsored by Mozilla, they are shutting down in March 12th due to lack of funding.
I could go on.
This is just wishful thinking. Go ahead and open an instance with open registration, see how long it will take for you to regret it.
And there is a huge number of admins that got users and then burned out due to harassment, spam, entitled users asking for/against federation due to petty drama…
.
Can you provide any sources for where you’re getting this information? Did any of these instances share their server expenses and how much was being donated, or are we just supposed to “trust them bro”?
Are you delusional? I’m not even going to entertain how stupid this response is.
And there’s a huge number that don’t and enjoy having power over the discourse, as evidenced by how many of them do it.
I have to say, you’re pretty
naiveinnocent to the world around you. It’s to be expected that you’re going to bat so hard for people trying to take money from you without verifying their expenses.*Apparently he reported my comment to have it censored for calling him “naive” rather than present arguments that show us that he’s not.
I agree. Commercials get in, you get what happened to the Internet. We need something new.
Think beyond VC backed companies. Those get tons of attention because they need it.
Investors = bad. I whole heartedly agree.
For profit doesn’t have to be bad. What if it were a worker/user co-op. Have a free product and have a paid product. If you pay for the product you get a (just one) vote. If you work for the company you get a vote. Users won’t vote for maximizing profit. But the profit means you don’t have to beg for donations.
Craigslist would be another example. For profit but no major investors so doesn’t have to prioritize profits.
My home instance is starting to do some of this, it’s talked about a lot in lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/div0
What are they looking at doing for revenue?
People who support the server have greater voting rights; no revenue steam. But I think it would be cool to sell pirate plushies!
Unrelated: If you code it’s not hard to insert ads in between the comments on your own lemmy instance. It would be a cool experience but probably would create significant vitriol and site wide bannings by most, if not all, major instances for trying.
The problem for most monitization is psychological only ; many ideas would be an unwinnable uphill battle. Yes, can put ads in but also be a leper with zero traffic. You could probably put in perks if have good coding skills or can hire good skills; but if public relations done wrong then you are “poison to the community”.
You could try to do awards ( Reddit gold) but may get laughed off the platform. It’s a tough crowd
A for profit worker co-op is very different than a private for-profit. A for-profit worker co-op would be fine ik my book and in fact preferable than a non worker co-op nonprofit.
Non-Profits only. ANY for profit entries will be a poisoned pill at this stage.
Ghost have their code open source and offer paid for hosting which is not unreasonable as you’d to pay to send bulk emails anyway even if you self-hosted (although there are free tiers from some providers if your only send a few hundred a month).
Bluesky app is open source. I wonder if someone would try and replace the ATProtocol API endpoints with Mastodon ones.
Non-profits is what we need here.
I think supporter badges would be a good monetization model for each instance. ActivityPub could allow for an arbitrary “badge” field (to my knowledge it doesn’t currently have anything like this but I also haven’t read the spec), and each server could fill it in however it likes. Other servers/users could limit displaying them if they get abused, à la pig poop balls on hexbear (or whatever it’s moved on to being called now).
Non profit coops. It need to be people owned.
Sounds good on paper, but the practical implementations make them not any different than any other small service provider. cosocial.ca is a Canadian co-op for Mastodon. To become a member, you must pay CA$50 per year. What kind of “ownership” does that give to you as member? Nothing, really. You can not take control of the domain or the server.
At best, you’ll get some bureaucratic oversight and the “right” to make proposals regarding changes in governance: “use the money to upgrade the server or to pay the admin”, “Allow some members to get free access because they are facing some hardship, yes or no?” etc.
But at the end of the day, is any of that “ownership” making you (or the other members) better off compared to a service like mastodon.green, which simply charges $1/month and gives you an account?
That sounds pretty good to me
If your idea for a good way to spend your hard-earned money is “to own” a service provider that gives you the privilege of participating in absolutely low stakes meetings, then sure, go for it. If you want, I can set up a server for you and you get in charge of finding members to join. Deal?
In my country a coop is a legal entity and it does give you actual ownership. And we do have data coops where people pay, and vote on how services should be developed.
Can you make a list of coops that provide service to its members and is overall cheaper than the equivalent commercial offerings?
Why would it have to be cheaper? I’m not going to make a list. It’s a normal form of organisation in my country. For example my whole apartment complex is owned by the people who live there. We vote on what we want to pay in rent and how we want to spent the money.
And the same can be done with data coops. Here is one: data.coop
There are others, with other values.
“Being cheaper” is a very good proxy for “being more accessible” and “easier to be universally accepted”.
If the coop model gives you some (real or perceived) benefit to you, great. But if the cost of acquiring/maintaining those benefits are too high, it becomes more of yet-another status symbol than an actual development for society at large.
You’ll never be able to compete with mega corps that can scale and sell your data, in order to provide a service for free. Price will never be the selling point of a more democratic web.
I gave an example elsewhere on this post: cosocial (a coop) charges $50/year from its members for Mastodon access. mastodon.green (not a coop) charges $12/year. Communick (not a coop) charges $29/year for Mastodon and Lemmy and Matrix and Funkwhale with 250GB of storage. omg.lol charges $20/year for Mastodon, and some other cool web services.
All of these small and independent service providers are offering more than a coop, and they can not scale beyond a certain point. If the service is built on FOSS, then it means that if the business model becomes successful it will face competition.
Painting co-ops as the only alternative against Big Tech is the mistake, here. Smaller ISVs could make things cheaper, serve the market ethically and efficiently without requiring everyone to worry about “owner duties”.
You don’t have to have everybody worry about owner duty. Cooperatives doesn’t have to be tiny organisations. You can have full time employees and so on: en.m.wikipedia.org/…/Danish_cooperative_movement
Ok. Could you maybe focus on the core point of the argument instead of “well, actually”-ing into the details of co-op structuring?
The point I’m trying to make is that the more “people-owned” any organization it is, and the more people are practically involved in the decision-making process, the less efficient it will be and the more costly it will be compared with a business that is solely focused on creating a financially sustainable operation.
So yes, you can certainly make a co-op with dedicated employees and not have all members involved in the governance apparatus. But if you are going that route, you are not that different from any other business and the “members” are not that different from regular stockholders who are just subject to an executive board. And if you are not going that route to show support for the process more than the actual service, you may end up with something “nice” but which will unquestionably cost a lot more (relatively speaking) than a simpler commercial alternative.
Because you are making the tired old authoritarian argument that democracy is slow, and therefore it’s better to create hierarchical organisations with some benevolent dictators. And I believe that power always corrupts so it’s not a good solution. You believe some different so we will never agree.
That is a non-sequitur and a misrepresentation of my argument. I’m talking about having smaller independent software commercial providers, where the relationship between parties is guided mostly by free trade. Who is the “benevolent dictator” in this scenario?
What makes you believe that cooperatives are free from power games and political disputes?
I just gave boost $4 to remove the ads. I prefer OSS and Non Profits absolutely, but I also acknowledge that we live in a capitalist hellscape and good things take money.
My own Communick offers managed hosting for things like Mastodon, Matrix, Lemmy, PixelFed, GoToSocial, Takahe for those that want to have their own server but do not want to deal with the hassle of managing it or worrying about security updates. I also offer paid accounts: $29/year gives you an account at all of our “flagship” instances: meaning you can get an account on Mastodon, Lemmy, Matrix and Funkwhale.
There are other providers like omg.lol (Mastodon account at social.lol and some other cool services for $20/year) and mastodon.green (accounts cost $1/month).
All of these servers are of course smaller and less popular than the ones that are open for registration, but unsurprisingly they are stable, well managed, free of drama and (AFAIK) never been linked to spammers or trolls. IOW, “you get what you pay for”.
I'd say this is just like a nice e-mail provider that provides you with email and a bit of cloud storage and a place to sync your addressbook and calender for like $5 a month. We could do the same with social media and the Fediverse.
Profits are a bit like internal taxes on wages.
Co-op NPOs should use these taxes to further the company’s goals instead of crude extraction into the goals of the owners.
Those aren’t perfect, because once they reach a certain size any form of corruption can have big bad consequences. The Fediverse approach to this is “decentralisation”, but all decentralisation efforts have an API vulnerability - there needs to be a central body that develops the “language” between the actors.
On the other hand, you might not have an ear for any of this, because you might be dependent on your business’ profits.
Id like to see non for profits hosting servers for their members. fandom conventions, maker spaces, etc. It would also make sense for them to host communities around what they do. scifi literature, games, 3d printing, etc.
Right, long term nothing is more important than retaining agency over their major methods of interaction with members and fostering vibrant online communities that feed into positive momentum.
You’ve nailed it. That’s the key bit that organizations of all kinds are going to figure out.
Sadly the UX here sucks compared to for profit platforms like Bluesky, I don’t know of a good solution, but money is probably needed.
Open source projects aren’t doomed to lousy UX forever.
Shoves GNUImp behind a desk with a foot.
Just look at recent releases of Gnome and KDE. We can have nice things, it just takes time.
Fediverse is open source and decentralized, so any for-profit model could leverage it without asking for anyone’s permission. There are already for-profit companies that build and maintain apps to access Fediverse platforms. Meta Threads and Tumblr are both integrating into ActivityPub as their own hosts. I imagine in a future where Fediverse grows rampantly, the hosts with the best overall user experience will be for-profit. We live in a world of global capitalism, good things cost money most of the time.
I’ve found it’s the exact opposite: the best things in life are free.
It’s actually built-in to your argument. None of this would be possible without free protocols that are accessible to everyone.
Protocols can be developed and then shared without cost except for the upfront development costs. Hosting a continuous service requires regular income, meaning for profit models will always out-resource non-profit models of hosting. Especially if a platform is looking at hosting more than just text and compressed images. Why do you think Pixelfed’s main host only allows uploads of up to 15MB?
Does Flipboard fit this description? They are part of fedi already
Yes I think so. If they had an ad free versions I’d pay for it.