I’ve been using fediverse stuff (Mastodon and, most recently, Calckey – I’m just going to use “Mastodon” as shorthand here, purists can bite me) for over a year now, a…
I’ve been using fediverse stuff (Mastodon and, most recently, Calckey – I’m just going to use “Mastodon” as shorthand here, purists can bite me) for over a year now, a…
Who’s going to be paid for the ongoing maintenance of the software? Who’s going to pay for the servers the software’s run on? A decentralized architecture doesn’t remove the operating costs of a large scale social media site. As the article alludes to, it might even increase operating costs.
To be honest, I’m not interested in small, niche communities. I want the fediverse to grow into something that can rival social media giants like Reddit, and Twitter. How a site is monetized is as key of a feature as anything else, because without monetization, a site is doomed.
I’d imagine no one in particular. It’s donations and open-source model. Eventually (if it gets popular) it might get some other business model or grants from FOSS funds. Remains to be seen.
Same here. Donations and/or whoever hosts the servers. Instances should grow to whatever their maintainer can afford/has planned. Then they should close signups. Other instances might pop up. There are currently a lot of Lemmy instances and some people are starting to spin up new kbin instances.
Eventually someone is probably going to try ads for their site.
But fediverse is not just “a site”. It’s many. They all have their own rules, plans and ambitions.
I never thought of how capping sign ups doesn’t affect you in the fediverse… you can just sign up on a different instance! Very cool to think that server hosts can stay within their own limitations.