I prefer good faith discussions please. I love the Fediverse and love what it can be long term. The problem is that parts of the culture want nothing to do with financial aspect. Many are opposed to ads, memberships, sponsorships etc The “small instances” response does nothing to positively contribute to the conversation. There are already massive instances and not everyone wants to self host. People are concerned with larger companies coming to the Fedi but these beliefs will drive everyday users to those instances. People don’t like feeling disposable and when you hamstring admins who then ultimately shut down their instances that’s exactly how people end up feeling. There has to be an ethical way of going about this. So many people were too hard just to be told “too bad” “small instances” I don’t want to end up with a Fediverse ran by corporations because they can provide stability.
Do the expenses include the cost of labor from admins and moderators?
When there is a big issue hitting the fediverse (like an bunch of script kiddies attacking servers and pushing CSAM), are we going to just wait for the admins to clock out of the regular-jobs-that-pay-the-bills and then take a look at it?
Lemmy.world is the largest instance and is getting less than 25 cents per user in donations. Meanwhile, Facebook has shown that the true price of what a privacy-respecting social media site is around 10€/month. Do you really think that 25 cents per user is enough to keep this minimally professional?
Facebook doesn’t have a lot of reason to go be telling exactly the truth there …
The precise price doesn’t matter, but the order of magnitude does.
Even if Zuck is lying and he is pushing a high price as extortion tactic. Cut that 10€ by 4 and let’s say that the “real” price is 2.50€. That’s still 10x more than lemmy.world is getting in donations.
Maybe Facebook has bigger problems because they’re so huge; like being a bigger target for attack by hate groups.
Maybe they just really like their fancy offices and cafeterias.
Maybe it’s just better for the world if online speech is diversified over lots of small services instead of one monopoly service; and this is reflected in the way the world actually behaves towards these different services.
Conversely, the fact that they are one single corporation lets them achieve economies of scale and reduce their operational costs per user.
Yeah, so what? Do you think that the developers of free software, the admins of the instances and the moderators putting in time to make this work don’t deserve recognition/compensation for their work?
You are basically saying that only martyrs should be doing work on FOSS, the Fediverse and anything that is based on a good ethical foundation. It’s basically giving the middle finger to the people who can actually make a difference.
Absolutely agree. The more decentralized, the more resilient we become. However, the cost per user does not go down, in fact it goes up. Running the infrastructure to serve 2 billion people (like Instagram/Facebook/WhatsApp) requires massive resources already in a centralized/highly optimized corporation, on a decentralized structure it will cost even more. The question is: are the people willing to bear these costs? So far, the data says “no, they are not”.
Why not? It’s a hobby project.
I thought we didn’t want big companies to control the fediverse? But if we want people to main-job it, then naturally you’re turning it into a business, and sooner or later the larger it gets, the largest will be, well, a big company. Naturally. A Lemmy-company, basically. Lemmy.world Ltd.
Do we want big business to run the place, or not? In the latter case, it cannot be a viable full time job, or it will naturally turn into the former if successful.
Why?! Why be self-limiting about it?
Do you think that when NLNet gave the Lemmy devs a grant, they were just funding a hobby or do you think they were hoping to make it a viable alternative?
It does not follow. As long as it is open source, it can not be controlled by any single entity. History is full of cases of companies that tried to exert control over open platforms and it did not end up well for them.