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

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Ok. Could you maybe focus on the core point of the argument instead of "well, actually"-ing into the details of co-op structuring?

The point I'm trying to make is that the more "people-owned" any organization it is, and the more people are practically involved in the decision-making process, the less efficient it will be and the more costly it will be compared with a business that is solely focused on creating a financially sustainable operation.

So yes, you can certainly make a co-op with dedicated employees and not have all members involved in the governance apparatus. But if you are going that route, you are not that different from any other business and the "members" are not that different from regular stockholders who are just subject to an executive board. And if you are not going that route to show support for the process more than the actual service, you may end up with something "nice" but which will unquestionably cost a lot more (relatively speaking) than a simpler commercial alternative.

[–] DaseinPickle@leminal.space 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Because you are making the tired old authoritarian argument that democracy is slow, and therefore it’s better to create hierarchical organisations with some benevolent dictators. And I believe that power always corrupts so it’s not a good solution. You believe some different so we will never agree.

[–] rglullis@communick.news 1 points 9 hours ago

therefore it’s better to create hierarchical organisations with some benevolent dictators.

That is a non-sequitur and a misrepresentation of my argument. I'm talking about having smaller independent software commercial providers, where the relationship between parties is guided mostly by free trade. Who is the "benevolent dictator" in this scenario?

I believe that power always corrupts so it’s not a good solution.

What makes you believe that cooperatives are free from power games and political disputes?