797
Mastodon is Rewinding the Clock on Social Media — in a Good Way
(chrlschn.medium.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
797 points (98.7% liked)
Fediverse
28493 readers
173 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
When's the last time you developed and released a full fledged software project for free?
Lemmy has gotten quite a bit of money in grants. It's safe to say that without the grants allowing the lemmy devs to work on it full time, it wouldn't be as functional as it is now. Getting grants really isn't easy and that shouldn't be the barrier to whether or not you can be compensated for your work.
Edit: Nvm, just realised you're not OP
If you are suggesting ads are the only way to fund software then you are mistaken. For example you can sell it for money to consumers.
Which... Sync does. So why are you bashing on it?
It still has ads. It can't take the moral high ground of selling software if it also has a free with ads version to try and convince people to subscribe. Get rid of the ad version and only sell the software and then it will actually have some integrity.
Wait... So you're arguing... Less options is BETTER? That somehow if they took away the choice of seeing ads and made payment mandatory, instead of giving users the choice, that would be more moral?
WTF?
Obviously less options isn't better in all circumstances. When of the options happens to be predatory then yes obviously it is better to not allow such a thing.
Imagine you have two options. You can either pay a one time fee of $50 or you can borrow the $50 and pay back $2 a month with 75% interest. Is allowing people the option to accidentally pay 5 times the amount something is valued better? Not that this situation is completely analogous to what is going on with Sync, but the point is to demonstrate that there exists a circumstance that less options is better for the consumer. Or at least a circumstance where having the only option has more integrity.
The best option I see for Sync that doesn't implement ads at all and thus being bad is to have a less featured version for free and then sell premium features. Or of course just sell the whole thing with no free version. There is also a the concept of a limited demo so you can try before you make your decision to purchase. There are so many things you can do that don't involve ads.
Yeah, no. I think that's a ridiculous opinion to have. FOSS is all about personal choice, yet here you are arguing that choices should be limited because you personally don't like one of the options. We're just going to have to disagree on this.
A ridiculous opinion to have is that ads are bad, except for this one particular situation. If you want to convince me that this is ok then you need to at least hold the opinion that ads aren't bad and then go from there.