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.

  • Dame @lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t know yet there have been several instances that shut down do to finances. Tell me how does something shut down due to finances if it’s not costly for the person? The Fediverse is also much larger than Lemmy.

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Look at the actual numbers.

      In August, total expenses = €1205, total donations = €2649

      People want this thing to work and are willing to donate to make it happen. And again, it’s not as expensive to run as you seem to think.

      • Dame @lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is ONE instance. Search or make a post and ask how many instances have shut down due to finances. Outside of finances it’s burnout due to moderation.

        • Shadow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think “shut down due to finances” really means “it was too much work to organize this, collect donations and run a production website” or “my site was too niche to attract users and i didn’t want to put the effort in”.

          There’s enough instances with public finances, to show that it’s a solvable problem.

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Could you explain in detail how you, personally, are helping?

          Or, more generally, on what basis do you think you know better?

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Does it matter? What if I start 24 instances tomorrow and shut them all down by friday? Does that really have an impact on sustainability? Conversely them pointing to lemmy.world is a prime example of exactly how it is sustainable. As long as one instance remains running it is sustaining. Other instances may come and go and that’s sad and all. But it’s pretty affordable by most metrics

          • Dame @lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It does matter if people are on your instance, just say you don’t care about others. Several instances have shutdown without warning and people lost their accounts. It matters because people matters. We should also want good experiences. Stating that people will get over it and find a new instance and make new posting history is selfish af

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Untold email servers have shut down and people have lost their accounts there. But email seems pretty sustainable still. So that doesn’t seem like a good metric either.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do the expenses include the cost of labor from admins and moderators?

        When there is a big issue hitting the fediverse (like an bunch of script kiddies attacking servers and pushing CSAM), are we going to just wait for the admins to clock out of the regular-jobs-that-pay-the-bills and then take a look at it?

        Lemmy.world is the largest instance and is getting less than 25 cents per user in donations. Meanwhile, Facebook has shown that the true price of what a privacy-respecting social media site is around 10€/month. Do you really think that 25 cents per user is enough to keep this minimally professional?

        • fubo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Facebook doesn’t have a lot of reason to go be telling exactly the truth there …

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The precise price doesn’t matter, but the order of magnitude does.

            Even if Zuck is lying and he is pushing a high price as extortion tactic. Cut that 10€ by 4 and let’s say that the “real” price is 2.50€. That’s still 10x more than lemmy.world is getting in donations.

            • fubo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe Facebook has bigger problems because they’re so huge; like being a bigger target for attack by hate groups.

              Maybe they just really like their fancy offices and cafeterias.

              Maybe it’s just better for the world if online speech is diversified over lots of small services instead of one monopoly service; and this is reflected in the way the world actually behaves towards these different services.

              • rglullis@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Maybe Facebook has bigger problems because they’re so huge; like being a bigger target for attack by hate groups.

                Conversely, the fact that they are one single corporation lets them achieve economies of scale and reduce their operational costs per user.

                Maybe they just really like their fancy offices and cafeterias.

                Yeah, so what? Do you think that the developers of free software, the admins of the instances and the moderators putting in time to make this work don’t deserve recognition/compensation for their work?

                You are basically saying that only martyrs should be doing work on FOSS, the Fediverse and anything that is based on a good ethical foundation. It’s basically giving the middle finger to the people who can actually make a difference.

                better for the world if online speech is diversified over lots of small services

                Absolutely agree. The more decentralized, the more resilient we become. However, the cost per user does not go down, in fact it goes up. Running the infrastructure to serve 2 billion people (like Instagram/Facebook/WhatsApp) requires massive resources already in a centralized/highly optimized corporation, on a decentralized structure it will cost even more. The question is: are the people willing to bear these costs? So far, the data says “no, they are not”.

        • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          When there is a big issue hitting the fediverse (like an bunch of script kiddies attacking servers and pushing CSAM), are we going to just wait for the admins to clock out of the regular-jobs-that-pay-the-bills and then take a look at it?

          Why not? It’s a hobby project.

          I thought we didn’t want big companies to control the fediverse? But if we want people to main-job it, then naturally you’re turning it into a business, and sooner or later the larger it gets, the largest will be, well, a big company. Naturally. A Lemmy-company, basically. Lemmy.world Ltd.

          Do we want big business to run the place, or not? In the latter case, it cannot be a viable full time job, or it will naturally turn into the former if successful.

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why not? It’s a hobby project.

            Why?! Why be self-limiting about it?

            Do you think that when NLNet gave the Lemmy devs a grant, they were just funding a hobby or do you think they were hoping to make it a viable alternative?

            Do we want big business to run the place, or not? In the latter case, it cannot be a viable full time job, or it will naturally turn into the former if successful.

            It does not follow. As long as it is open source, it can not be controlled by any single entity. History is full of cases of companies that tried to exert control over open platforms and it did not end up well for them.

    • Shadow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      For context lemmy.ca runs on $125/cdn month and could be downsized still, we’ve overspecced for the load we get today. We could probably cut that in half.