At #FediCon, there's clear acknowledgment that the #Fediverse needs funding.
-
At #FediCon, there’s clear acknowledgment that the #Fediverse needs funding.
But also: developers, admins, mods, and creatives should be compensated for their work.
-
At #FediCon, there’s clear acknowledgment that the #Fediverse needs funding.
But also: developers, admins, mods, and creatives should be compensated for their work.
@atomicpoet But if the #fediverse gets funded then it's no different than all big tech companies???
-
@atomicpoet But if the #fediverse gets funded then it's no different than all big tech companies???
stu No, Big Tech companies prevent workers from receiving fair compensation. That’s literally what makes them Big Tech.
-
At #FediCon, there’s clear acknowledgment that the #Fediverse needs funding.
But also: developers, admins, mods, and creatives should be compensated for their work.
@atomicpoet Here's where I simply admit to not understanding something.
How could this be done fairly, i.e. without a small group of people having exclusive and undemocratic control over the purse strings?
It's easy to agree with your post in principle, but what about in practice?
-
@atomicpoet Here's where I simply admit to not understanding something.
How could this be done fairly, i.e. without a small group of people having exclusive and undemocratic control over the purse strings?
It's easy to agree with your post in principle, but what about in practice?
-
@atomicpoet @ApostateEnglishman
It comes down to organising and doing the marketing. I understand there are additional difficulties due to the decentralised Fediverse. It seems logical to me that the money flows from the users to the administrators and then to the dev people. If Signal can be successful with crowdfunding, so can Mastodon, for example. Since the Fediverse has no business model on making profit, there is also no return on invested capital. -
@atomicpoet @ApostateEnglishman
It comes down to organising and doing the marketing. I understand there are additional difficulties due to the decentralised Fediverse. It seems logical to me that the money flows from the users to the administrators and then to the dev people. If Signal can be successful with crowdfunding, so can Mastodon, for example. Since the Fediverse has no business model on making profit, there is also no return on invested capital.@marcellinusme @ApostateEnglishman It is not true that the “Fediverse” has no business model on making a profit. There are several companies profiting from the Fediverse, and they’ve done so for years. -
@marcellinusme @ApostateEnglishman It is not true that the “Fediverse” has no business model on making a profit. There are several companies profiting from the Fediverse, and they’ve done so for years.
@atomicpoet @ApostateEnglishman
It may be important to distinguish between Fediverse implementations for profit and the instances for nonprofit. A basic requirement to do marketing well. -
@atomicpoet @ApostateEnglishman
It may be important to distinguish between Fediverse implementations for profit and the instances for nonprofit. A basic requirement to do marketing well.@marcellinusme @ApostateEnglishman Sure—my standpoint is that unless a server explicitly states it operates under the aegis of a non-profit, assume it is either for-profit or possibly for-profit.
And the reality is, few Fediverse servers are under the aegis of a non-profit.
Certainly, your server is—mastodon.social is not the typical Fediverse server. There are prominent servers, though, run by for-profit companies.
But beyond servers, let’s consider hosts. Many of them are for-profit. Digital Ocean and Cloudron are certainly profiting from the many servers that depend on them.
️
