71–80 of 264 posts
I wonder if it's possible to take the Wikipedia model (open source, non profit entity) and use that to build a social network.
I always thought it would be cool if every NPR/PBS station also ran Fediverse nodes of mastodon or whatever the Fediverse version of Facebook is. Would provide a public-funded option with more transparency
I'm a participant in a community that explicitly refuses money from outside its membership. If that means we can't grow fast, or have fancy digs, so be it. The reason for that, is to avoid having influence from outside. Even "angel" investment can be problematic, as the "angel" has the ear of the leadership. I have found that even well-meaning outsiders can have highly destructive influence, because they don't unders…
It’s very interesting and telling that most of the technology that connects us does not have us as a customer, or a financial beneficiary. One of the key aspects of technofeudalism is the extractive nature of most of our platforms.
That's a name I haven't thought of for several years. I wonder if Fediverse, Blue Sky, etc will catch, or if it'll end up in the same boat. Threads too (yes it's backed by Meta, but G+ had Google behind it ...)
1. Meta's entire business is social apps, and Google's is not. There are strategic differences in approach as a result. 2. Google+ was an attempt to disrupt Facebook's rise at the height of Facebook's popularity. People _liked_ FB then - so trying to get them to switch to another product was harder. Threads shipped during a time of volatility with Xitter and is poised to capture more of that audience as Xitter continues to decay.
In terms of how things will change in the space over time, Threads choice to support ActivityPub will probably mean good things for the Fediverse in general, at least in the short term (3E notwithstanding), and could ultimately serve to be the arbiter that kills BlueSky and the AT Protocol.
I wonder if it's possible to take the Wikipedia model (open source, non profit entity) and use that to build a social network.
I always thought it would be cool if every NPR/PBS station also ran Fediverse nodes of mastodon or whatever the Fediverse version of Facebook is. Would provide a public-funded option with more transparency
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s very interesting and telling that most of the technology that connects us does not have us as a customer, or a financial beneficiary. One of the key aspects of technofeudalism is the extractive nature of most of our platforms.
Because given the choice it seems many people prefer free with ads to paid? I'm just thankful that mobile phone networks haven't switched to a "free with ads interspersed into your texts" model yet. (Of course there are still ads in my texts, but at least those are officially spam rather than network endorsed.)
Market timing is hard.
Just a reminder: If you are not paying for the product, you are the product. The internet culture birthed from the early days of the internet "Everything is free", seems to have captured a whole generation who simply have no concept of cost and value. Vid.me is another start-up that comes to mind: Youtube sucks, has too many ads, and sells your data. We won't have ads, won't sell your data, and will host all your con…
The truth is that a profit-maximising business will seek revenue opportunities where it can, and if that means selling both services, on a single-instance or subscription basis, and advertising, it will do both.
Advertising-only or advertising-dominated businesses have a strong tendency to degrade faster and far more prolifically than those with mixed-model funding (I still find The Economist's three-legged revenues stool fascinating: subscriptions, advertising, and Economist Intelligence Unit bespoke consulting and research services, each roughly 1/3 of total revenues).
Paying alone, however, is a far-from-sufficient condition.
Makes me think about how Bluesky is also a Public Benefit Corporation and took $8m in funding.
Even the supposedly indie anti-social social media outright violated their own manifesto. Is it any surprise that we're skeptical of the big promises of a bright future that corporations make all the time? I'm curious to know if anyone has evidence of a post similar to this but for a company with a (so far) happy ending.
I'm interested about the public benefit corporation part here. Did the PBC status wind up changing anything at all here? How does a PBC sell itself or get acquired? How is a PBC supposed to terminate or wind down? If they violate their charter as Ello may have, who exactly enforces it or file a lawsuit, and what is their compensation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because given the choice it seems many people prefer free with ads to paid? I'm just thankful that mobile phone networks haven't switched to a "free with ads interspersed into your texts" model yet. (Of course there are still ads in my texts, but at least those are officially spam rather than network endorsed.)
This is an argument for standards. You can switch messaging clients. Platforms own you.