• rglullis@communick.newsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because someone has to

      Why? What is the moral imperative here? Why do you have to do it?

      not everything is about money.

      Sure, if you don’t care about any meaningful impact and just treat it as a glorified hobby.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Why? What is the moral imperative here? Why do you have to do it?

        Because people need social media and we need a way out of the centralized ones and most people just won’t pay 10 for a reddit alternative.

        Sure, if you don’t care about any meaningful impact and just treat it as a glorified hobby.

        I believe managing to draw people away for explored walled gardens into a system controlled by the community will have massive impact

        • rglullis@communick.newsOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Because people need social media

          People also need phone service, drinking water and energy to heat their homes, etc. Are we just going to keep expecting that someone should do this work for free to them?

          people just won’t pay 10 for a reddit alternative.

          No, they won’t. But some of them will pay $30/year (like they are paying me) and I’m sure that I can could serve 10000 users at this price point. There are also others (like mastodon.green and social.lol) who are charging even less - but offering less services.

          I am pretty sure that our problem is not competing with each other, but competing to those who keep offering things for free.

          If I’m being completely honest with you, anyone that subsidizes the real cost for the users - whether is Big Tech offering free services and making money on ads or a bunch of idealistic kids running servers for people they don’t really know - are effectively making the open web less sustainable.

          I believe managing to draw people away for explored walled gardens into a system controlled by the community will have massive impact

          Talk real numbers.

          • How many people (in your opinion) are needed to get out and stay exclusively in the Fediverse in order to say we have “massive impact”?
          • How many people are going to be willing to serve everyone else while working for free? I.e, how many instances like yours are we going to need?
          • How many people are actually going to be “in control”? Let’s say that we get 100 “community-owned” instances for 10M users. How do you see this “community-owned” dynamic?

          I really don’t mind people running servers for free. I think that if this is something they enjoy doing it and it makes them feel like they are helping, fine. But it is delusional to think that this alone will be ever be able to make a dent in the overall system.

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            People also need phone service, drinking water and energy to heat their homes, etc. Are we just going to keep expecting that someone should do this work for free to them?

            As an anarchist, that’s what I’m driving for, yes. And they would be giving their effort back for free as well

            No, they won’t. But some of them will pay $30/year (like they are paying me) and I’m sure that I can could serve 10000 users at this price point.

            OK that’s what I’m doing as well, only it’s donations and not payment for a service? Like I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue here if paying customers would subsidize non paying ones.

            If I’m being completely honest with you, anyone that subsidizes the real cost for the users - whether is Big Tech offering free services and making money on ads or a bunch of idealistic kids running servers for people they don’t really know - are effectively making the open web less sustainable.

            No, they make the open web possible. We can’t get out of this situation we’re in by trying to squeeze the last bit of disposable income from people for the social media. We’ll get out of it by proving that we can handle this through mutual aid without any money in the process.

            Talk real numbers

            Nobody can speculate those numbers. We’re in uncharted territory. I’m down to experiment.

            But it is delusional to think that this alone will be ever be able to make a dent in the overall system.

            Whats delusional is thinking that doing the same Ole Capitalism will change they capitalist system it’s delusional to think that keeping money involved would mean anything else than those with the most money will win always.

            • rglullis@communick.newsOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              So, it comes down from a fundamental difference in worldview.

              We can’t get out of this situation we’re in by trying to squeeze the last bit of disposable income from people for the social media.

              This is a misrepresentation of the argument

              We’ll get out of it by proving that we can handle this through mutual aid without any money in the process.

              Sorry, this is honestly the type of sentence that I can only expect to come from a basement-dwelling teenager.

              Money != Capitalism. Also, I dare you to find one single economist in the world that can claim that a barter-based system can develop a global economy as wealthy and developed as ours.

              Whats delusional is thinking that doing the same Ole Capitalism will change they capitalist system

              Again, “Money != Capitalism”. Besides that, “Capitalism” (to which I think you really mean “profit motive”) is not the problem. I can bet that even your anarchist utopia where people “mutually help each other” would end up relying on some form of monetary-based system to make resource allocation fair and predictable.

              Nothing has been found to be a better and fairer driver of social and economic development as free trade. We don’t need to throw away the baby with the bathwater. There is nothing immoral about the profit motive.

              Corporativism is the problem. Globalism is the problem. This is the thing that we should be fighting against, and not making villains out of someone that just wants to make a living out of a fair business offer.

              • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Sorry, this is honestly the type of sentence that I can only expect to come from a basement-dwelling teenager.

                Did you really have to write that? What did you aim to accomplish with it?

                Money != Capitalism. Also, I dare you to find one single economist in the world that can claim that a barter-based system can develop a global economy as wealthy and developed as ours.

                Who said anything about barter? Also most economists are just glorified paid apologists of the status-quo at best, of techno-fascism at worst.

                Again, “Money != Capitalism”.

                You cannot have capitalism without money. While you can have socialism with money, I doubt Mutualism (or monarchies) is what you’re thinking of either.

                Besides that, “Capitalism” (to which I think you really mean “profit motive”) is not the problem. I can bet that even your anarchist utopia where people “mutually help each other” would end up relying on some form of monetary-based system to make resource allocation fair and predictable.

                You’d lose.

                Nothing has been found to be a better and fairer driver of social and economic development as free trade. We don’t need to throw away the baby with the bathwater. There is nothing immoral about the profit motive.

                Literally on the brink of climate collapse and with multiple fascist parties on the rise and you still gargle the delusions of “free trade” that never existed. There’s everything immoral with the profit motive. In fact, you incessant drive for profit on the fediverse is what alienates people towards you.

                Corporativism is the problem. Globalism is the problem. This is the thing that we should be fighting against, and not making villains out of someone that just wants to make a living out of a fair business offer.

                Corporations and globalization, monopolies and monopolies re the natural evolution of “free trade” and capitalism. I will never support what you’re trying to achieve and will agitate against it from every angle. Make of this situation what you will.