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.
I can only say that when the provider of my instance ask for donations, I will donate. Because they do a bloody good service on all sides and that should be honoured. I guess that this is applicable to all instances?
Donations isn’t the way to go because most people don’t. I’ve seen about three polls that have had thousands of responses and the majority of people fell in the never donated category and many fell in the never donated and will not donate category. Something feels wrong about leaving people’s hard work to donations, obviously it should be a part of the equation.
I donate, and I'll donate again, and as far as I know it is covering costs. I believe the person who runs this instance (Jonah) does so because he wants to, and if he should ever decide to close it, then I think he should, if it stops bringing him joy and fulfillment.
I feel like you are devaluing the fediverse by reducing it to monetary value. Simply put: If we are talking about bringing in corporate sponsors and ads, then speaking for myself, not only would I no longer donate, but I would no longer feel connected in any way to this platform.
There are plenty of other forums that aren't federated but are sustained by people because they want to, not because of monetary gain.
Just look how monetization has leeched the soul out of things like podcasts and YouTube (I'd say reddit, but reddit was never good to begin with). Do you really want that here? I know I don't. I'd rather see it end than become another site like that.
What is your definition of "covering costs"? If the person running the instance goes to say "I actually enjoy this so much that I want to make my full-time job. My salary as whatever is $150k/year, so to this full-time I need to make at least that much. "
Do you think that the admin is being fair? Are you going to continue donating? Is the amount of your donation contingent on how much they are getting in total?
Where did I say corporate sponsors and ads? Please state where I said that. It’s obnoxious how often people state something incorrectly particularly when the original post wasn’t ambiguous. I feel that YOU and others are devaluing the Fediverse by poo pooing over people’s hard work and time. A thank you simply isn’t enough. If im wrong for valuing people that’s a hill I’m willing to die on.
You seem to be a victim of the disease called capitalistus brainrottus. I already said I donate, but I wouldn't even consider that to be as much a show of gratitude as someone who doesn't donate as much but contributes more content.
I was a Skyrim mod author and you pearl clutchers were always preaching doom and gloom there too, but fortunately there you failed while those who contributed freely and openly thrived. You who can't conceive of value beyond mere currency, where everything you do is transactional. I feel sorry for you.
Imaging doing something because you like doing it. Unthinkable!
So thank you for your contributions to Skyrim then and to the fediverse now!
You said you want good faith discussions, but you preemptively dismissed one of the biggest answers because you don't think it's a good solution. Then you have people here disagreeing with you, explaining why, and pointing to examples of it being done successfully, and you continue to completely dismiss a donation as nothing more than a "thank you" - how is this in any way a good faith discussion if any opposing viewpoint is immediately met with this kind of "YOU'RE the problem" response?
I do understand your frustration in those cases in which donations fail, but it seems like you're not willing to meet us halfway and acknowledge that sometimes, donations succeed, and not by accident or luck. There's data there - test cases we could be picking apart and seeing what critical mass needs to be reached before an instance can reliably secure donations and what we can do for admins until their instances reach that threshold. But you're just dismissing it as nonviable even though it clearly works for a lot of places.
That is not good faith.
It’s not good faith to point to a donations working and saying that’s why it should remain that way. It’s not good faith when people are disagreeing with me yet participate in capitalism daily. I’m not talking about the important needs, we can’t escape that. I’m talking about leisure: vacations, video games, etc People here do those optional activities yet it’s some sort of sin to say let’s explore options to keep this place running and compensate the people that makes this all work
You say you want good faith discussion, but you've completely nixed the main point we have today, with no room for argument. You may not know it, but you are coming at this in bad faith.
How?
Donations are a sustainable model for development. Less sustainable than government taxation, but more sustainable than ads, subscriptions, and/or fees by a mile.
I mean Reddit Gold was a cool idea back in its heyday.
But yeah, funding it via donations comes with some implications in regards to cutting non-donation costs.
Say you have a single donation tier, on patreon or so. If push comes to shove and you get too few donations, the following would be perfectly understandable things to happen:
These all sound grotesque, but also understandable if you think about it, in particular the last one as personell cost is always really significant. Yeah you could argue "might as well go paid-only", sure. But to a point free users are okay, they just have to accept that in any "maybe" situation, they'll always lose out due to costing too much vs paying too little (nothing that is). "You get what you pay for" would be a way of putting it.
I get what you’re saying and I appreciate your view instead of immediately going to attack mode like many others. Donations are great but aren’t sustainable long term. I think a freemium model would work