We will need small and independent commercial providers for the Fediverse.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    Are they going to go to appeal to “your donation is very important to us” and expect that a few generous souls make up for the free-riders?

    While the author seems to think this is unrealistic, it seems to work well for Wikipedia and even more so for F2P games that are massively profitable (although ethically questionable as they intentionally exploit gambling addicitons… maybe an argument could be had about social media doing the same though).

    • rglullis@communick.newsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Hacker News discussion that sparked this post also argued that Wikipedia was a reasonable counter-argument. My response then is the same as it is now:

      • Wikipedia has a different usage model. Content there is read a lot less than it is written and a lot more permanent. You can store all of wikipedia in a small hard disk.
      • When people make a change on Wikipedia, they are doing for their own good as well as others. Moderators on Social media are doing it solely to combat trolls and harassers.
      • Wikipedia is not a business. They are a foundation and they’ve used that position to do questionable things as well. (not sharing their actual revenues, no financial support for their moderators, etc)
      • poVoq@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wikimedia is raking in millions from donations. That money could easily also finance a social media site.