Almost all the servers on Mastodon and the wider Fediverse are run by unpaid grassroots volunteers that pay their server's bills out of their own pockets.
-
@FediTips I just posted and also linked this to the German ministry for digital things (@BMDS) ... hope it helps!
(The german text from me is basically the same meaning. Repost from what i already wrote last friday, to the government account.)
https://techhub.social/@snornik/115249018517284463Dette indlæg er slettet! -
@FediTips I just posted and also linked this to the German ministry for digital things (@BMDS) ... hope it helps!
(The german text from me is basically the same meaning. Repost from what i already wrote last friday, to the government account.)
https://techhub.social/@snornik/115249018517284463It would be great if there were grants available to people who run servers
-
@gbargoud @FediTips yes that's for organizations. It would be nice if this could Cross-Finance the Fediverse for private users, but I don't think that will fit. For a number of reasons.
I wonder how a sustainable implementation could look for a "general user instance". Something that would ensure professional it-security, backup and content Administration. Maybe that's only possible if "mainstream" accept that you have to pay for it. But again, I don't see that happening any time soon.
"Professional moderation" on commercial social networks tends to be done really badly and really cheaply by LLM-based tools that look for keywords without understanding any context.
The ratio of human moderators to users on the Fediverse is much, much higher than on a commercial social network.
"Something that would ensure professional it-security, backup"
There are already backups etc available to instance owners through professional managed hosting providers.
-
it bugs me when people have expectations that this platform have the same functionality as the billionaire owned platforms. What Masto offers is not that. This is a grassroots experience that we are co-creating together. I wonder if people here who complain these things are bots or plants from the other platforms? The billionaires can't stand that we the people have an alternative to their data mining invasive social media platforms.
@inkorrupt I think that there are 4 reasons to be unhappy about the current Fediverse status quo:
1. I've seen a number of instance admins talk about the psychological and financial stress that they experience from running instances. (This often comes out when they decide that they can't manage it anymore.) I feel that, much like open source, it's a system that tends to be carried on the backs of a small number of volunteers at the expense of their well-being.
2. When these over-stressed admins finally realize that they can't handle running their instance, the instance sometimes very quickly shuts down, causing users to lose their account and data if they weren't able to export and migrate fast enough.
3. While for some of us the volunteer moderation works fine, members of various groups who are more likely to be targeted have reported that it's not remotely sufficient for them.
4. For those of us who would like to see open, standards-based social media break the walled garden oligopoly, it needs to be attractive enough in terms of features and scale well enough to capture users when the opportunity presents itself (which Fedi didn't manage all that well in 2022). This probably requires something more than a few core devs and a lot of hobbyists.
None of this necessarily requires a for-profit commercial venture or anything like that. There are, for example, already instances that are structured as cooperatives. And the recently-announced plans by Mastodon GmbH to offer managed hosting as a service may be another step in the right direction. It's just that the historical status quo of a donation button and hope doesn't seem like a sufficiently reliable plan.
-
It depends on what is meant by sustainable and long scale. There are many instances that have been operating since 2017 (Mastodon only began in 2016) or similar.
There have been many commercial social networks which have come and gone in that time such as Post News and Hive, which were run by professionals. The commercial networks couldn't make enough money to please investors so they shut down. Whereas the non-professional Fedi just carried on as it didn't need to please investors.
@FediTips Right, organic grow has been a strong factor in why fedi is so pleasant. However, for now I mostly see sub cultures with a stronger affiliation to tech stuff.
And I feel like by now the growth has come to an end. I don't say the majority must use primary Fedi, I'm happy if it stays like it is, but I think the world would be better if everyone would do.
I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't think the mainstream will ever come to Fedi, without someone pulling them here. Maybe that's ok.
-
M mthaastrup@helvede.net shared this topic
-
@FediTips Right, organic grow has been a strong factor in why fedi is so pleasant. However, for now I mostly see sub cultures with a stronger affiliation to tech stuff.
And I feel like by now the growth has come to an end. I don't say the majority must use primary Fedi, I'm happy if it stays like it is, but I think the world would be better if everyone would do.
I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't think the mainstream will ever come to Fedi, without someone pulling them here. Maybe that's ok.
"And I feel like by now the growth has come to an end."
Non-corporate platforms don't grow like corporate ones.
Commercial platforms try to grow quickly and unsustainably to please shareholders who are thinking about the next quarter's figures.
Fediverse growth happens differently:
1. Mass wave of new people
2. Wave dies down, many leave
3. More people stick around than before the wave, network has grownThis repeats over years and provides gradual but sustainable growth.
-
"And I feel like by now the growth has come to an end."
Non-corporate platforms don't grow like corporate ones.
Commercial platforms try to grow quickly and unsustainably to please shareholders who are thinking about the next quarter's figures.
Fediverse growth happens differently:
1. Mass wave of new people
2. Wave dies down, many leave
3. More people stick around than before the wave, network has grownThis repeats over years and provides gradual but sustainable growth.
@FediTips Maybe. But what if not? What if we have reached the limits without structural changes?
The Fediverse exist, it's a nice place. It doesn't need to grow to ensure it's existence. That's not my point.
I think society has a problem rooted in the marketing platforms some call "social media" and I think Fediverse is the best solution to this problem. But transferring the reasons why so many still use this platforms to Fedi, would perhaps need more possibilities to make money.
-
@inkorrupt I think that there are 4 reasons to be unhappy about the current Fediverse status quo:
1. I've seen a number of instance admins talk about the psychological and financial stress that they experience from running instances. (This often comes out when they decide that they can't manage it anymore.) I feel that, much like open source, it's a system that tends to be carried on the backs of a small number of volunteers at the expense of their well-being.
2. When these over-stressed admins finally realize that they can't handle running their instance, the instance sometimes very quickly shuts down, causing users to lose their account and data if they weren't able to export and migrate fast enough.
3. While for some of us the volunteer moderation works fine, members of various groups who are more likely to be targeted have reported that it's not remotely sufficient for them.
4. For those of us who would like to see open, standards-based social media break the walled garden oligopoly, it needs to be attractive enough in terms of features and scale well enough to capture users when the opportunity presents itself (which Fedi didn't manage all that well in 2022). This probably requires something more than a few core devs and a lot of hobbyists.
None of this necessarily requires a for-profit commercial venture or anything like that. There are, for example, already instances that are structured as cooperatives. And the recently-announced plans by Mastodon GmbH to offer managed hosting as a service may be another step in the right direction. It's just that the historical status quo of a donation button and hope doesn't seem like a sufficiently reliable plan.
"requires something more than a few core devs and a lot of hobbyists."
I'm not clear on what you're suggesting should happen instead?
Devs and admins are doing an amazing job with the resources they are given.
It's easy to point out problems but the corporate alternatives rely on VC money and cause "enshittification", which negates the entire point of alternative social networks.
It's great to see co-ops and more managed hosting, but how does that help fund instances?
-
@FediTips Maybe. But what if not? What if we have reached the limits without structural changes?
The Fediverse exist, it's a nice place. It doesn't need to grow to ensure it's existence. That's not my point.
I think society has a problem rooted in the marketing platforms some call "social media" and I think Fediverse is the best solution to this problem. But transferring the reasons why so many still use this platforms to Fedi, would perhaps need more possibilities to make money.
"Maybe. But what if not? What if we have reached the limits without structural changes?"
I've been through so many waves on here and this sentiment gets repeated every time a wave dies down, and every time it's forgotten when a new bigger wave happens.
Look at this article from 2017 on "six reasons why Mastodon won't survive":
https://mashable.com/article/mastodon-wont-survive
Mastodon now is far larger and more active than it was in 2017, but it's grown gradually so the media doesn't cover it as growing.
-
"Maybe. But what if not? What if we have reached the limits without structural changes?"
I've been through so many waves on here and this sentiment gets repeated every time a wave dies down, and every time it's forgotten when a new bigger wave happens.
Look at this article from 2017 on "six reasons why Mastodon won't survive":
https://mashable.com/article/mastodon-wont-survive
Mastodon now is far larger and more active than it was in 2017, but it's grown gradually so the media doesn't cover it as growing.
@FediTips I sure hope you're right and the social problems don't start to accelerate faster than we could catch up, because I really want to be wrong about this.
-
@FediTips I sure hope you're right and the social problems don't start to accelerate faster than we could catch up, because I really want to be wrong about this.
Yeah, that's a fair point. Things are getting really bad in the world
-
Almost all the servers on Mastodon and the wider Fediverse are run by unpaid grassroots volunteers that pay their server's bills out of their own pockets.
They don't sell your data or carry advertising, and they don't get any share of the donations given to the Mastodon etc software developers.
Please consider donating to your server admin, they usually have donation links on your server website's "About" page. You can also ask your admin directly about how to donate.
@FediTips Unspoken addition: ISPs want you to pay double for the privelage of being allowed to self host.
-
@FediTips Unspoken addition: ISPs want you to pay double for the privelage of being allowed to self host.
For hosting at home? Yeah, some ISPs aren't good about this. There perhaps ought to be specific regulations to protect the right to host at home?
-
Almost all the servers on Mastodon and the wider Fediverse are run by unpaid grassroots volunteers that pay their server's bills out of their own pockets.
They don't sell your data or carry advertising, and they don't get any share of the donations given to the Mastodon etc software developers.
Please consider donating to your server admin, they usually have donation links on your server website's "About" page. You can also ask your admin directly about how to donate.
> They don't sell your data...
Is this guaranteed though? Anyone can grab this data and, for example, use it to train a model, no?
-
> They don't sell your data...
Is this guaranteed though? Anyone can grab this data and, for example, use it to train a model, no?
Which data do you mean?
-
Which data do you mean?
@FediTips This
All threads. -
@FediTips This
All threads.How would an instance admin sell a public thread?
Surely LLMs etc will just slurp it without asking permission?
-
How would an instance admin sell a public thread?
Surely LLMs etc will just slurp it without asking permission?
@FediTips Yes, good point. Monetization of any kind isn't done by anyone hosting.
Thanks. I tend to think worst case in this age of surveillance economy.
-
"requires something more than a few core devs and a lot of hobbyists."
I'm not clear on what you're suggesting should happen instead?
Devs and admins are doing an amazing job with the resources they are given.
It's easy to point out problems but the corporate alternatives rely on VC money and cause "enshittification", which negates the entire point of alternative social networks.
It's great to see co-ops and more managed hosting, but how does that help fund instances?
@FediTips @FranceskaMann The post I was replying to seemed to me to be suggesting that there were no real problems to be addressed. My post was describing why I think there are significant problems to be addressed. I wasn't claiming to have the correct solutions. I suspect that various experiments will need to be tried to find good solutions, and it will likely require a mix of approaches to cover all types of users and use cases.
To address the specific examples I gave, I think managed hosting is useful to professionalize the hosting portion of the equation and make the full costs explicit; even if that still leaves the puzzle of how to fund it. Things like CoSocial are even more encouraging, as they explicitly require payment for membership (while creating a mechanism for gift memberships to support those who can't pay), rather than relying on users to spontaneously donate to cover unknown costs. And by involving users in governance, it may make people more invested, help them understand the challenges of running the server, and help guide the instance toward solutions that work for users.
-
@FediTips @FranceskaMann The post I was replying to seemed to me to be suggesting that there were no real problems to be addressed. My post was describing why I think there are significant problems to be addressed. I wasn't claiming to have the correct solutions. I suspect that various experiments will need to be tried to find good solutions, and it will likely require a mix of approaches to cover all types of users and use cases.
To address the specific examples I gave, I think managed hosting is useful to professionalize the hosting portion of the equation and make the full costs explicit; even if that still leaves the puzzle of how to fund it. Things like CoSocial are even more encouraging, as they explicitly require payment for membership (while creating a mechanism for gift memberships to support those who can't pay), rather than relying on users to spontaneously donate to cover unknown costs. And by involving users in governance, it may make people more invested, help them understand the challenges of running the server, and help guide the instance toward solutions that work for users.
Dette indlæg er slettet!
