I use Bluesky and Mastodon. Mastodon better hits where I want the fediverse to go but Bluesky is so much easier to use. Signup, UI, flagship app, feeds, and content is just so much less of a headache. But it feels like it's a matter of time before it's enshittified.

I was thinking about how much I hate big tech but there's a lot of small and mid-size companies that I have neutral to positive views on. Canonical, Mozilla, 37 Signals, Odoo are the ones that come to mind. All of those have a revenue model but also actively support open source initiatives and developers. None are perfect but better than "big tech" and get more done than just donation based development.

It feels like there needs to be some for-profit companies (without ads and maintaining privacy) that can help support the development around ActivityPub and maintain apps and servers that are easier to onboard and easier to use. Does this exist?

What could be some non-evil revenue models? I pay $20/month for a blogging platform for my business website. Maybe have a service to host AP servers for businesses or journalists? Personal private encrypted cloud services like photo backups that are integrated with AP?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 26 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (18 children)

Non-profits only IMO. Pay folks what they deserve, all the rest goes back in.

Investors can’t go near it. They’re always the problem.

[–] Lumberjacked@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (10 children)

You could do a for profit without investors. Any profit goes back to employees and paying users. Make it the operating agreement from the get go and no one could come in.

Non profit in many places means you can’t sell a service. So you rely on donations. Which means you’re constantly asking for donations.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (7 children)

Leadership changes. Employees change.

Look at valve: when Gabe dies it could become an absolute shitshow for us. We cannot depend on generosity and benevolence. It has to be a non-profit to limit the potential damage and force transparency.

[–] Lumberjacked@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah but Valve is centralized ownership still. One guy has majority and that makes a difference. A coop could be customer led from get go. 51% customers 49% employees or something like that.

The point being if you structure it as for profit you can charge for things and build a good product. You can make rules that says 100% of the profits have to be redistributed and no one can change that. It’s how many farm co-ops work.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (15 replies)