I didn't say that reddit's metrics were any better so your gotcha makes no sense.

Open source or GTFO. :)

Seriously, Lemmy is AGPL. Any client you do and any functionality you build on top of it must be AGPL as well.

How would it work? The other instances still need to know what actor is behind the activity.

Also, why? This is social media, not official elections. "Votes" here are completely meaningless.

It doesn't have to be this way. There are instances focused only on basketball, soccer, American Football, Tennis...

Do you know that story about the pottery teacher that made an experiment by separating students into two groups, one was going to be graded by how many pieces they made (quantity), the other by their best piece (quality), and that in the end the group that worried about quantity ended up producing better work than the ones focused on quality?

It's the same thing with the internet. You are familiar with Sturgeon's Law, right? Instead of looking at the 90% of crap (quality), we should find always to churn out as much content as possible so that the non-crap 10% can be of a reasonable number.

I honestly do not care about the dimwits on YouTube, but it pains me that I can not convince someone like @geerlingguy@mastodon.social to leave YouTube to post his content on an open alternative, because that would be the same as asking to stop having the resources to keep doing the amazing work that he does.

What is your base image? It has no python installed.

There is no commission from the funding part, it makes money by providing a service. To be a member of the Collective you need a paid plan on Communick. The cheapest one is $29/year, which gives an account on Mastodon/Lemmy/Matrix/Funkwhale.

Compared with Patreon which takes a 8% cut, any creator that is receiving more than $30 per month will be better off by using this platform instead.

I want to work an issue that is open since 2020, but I can only justify dropping all my other work for that if I have enough paying customers interested in some new feature. So, help me get 50 customers to my "all in one" hosting service and I will dedicate a week to it, which should be more than enough time for even a Rust newbie like me to submit a proper PR to that issue. Ok?

Not only all the things you mention, but I kept thinking "Well, if they do manage to make a pivot where they are nothing but infrastructure and still manage to please Wall Street, then good for everyone:

• Users will have a way to move out if they want to do so.
• Companies that want to keep a social media presence will be able to do it from their own domains, while not having to worry about the operational aspects.
• Decentralization is still preserved.
• Transparency is still preserved.
• By becoming infrastructure, it basically means they will become a commodity which will have to compete on price. Sure, one could make the case that AWS (and Azure/GCP) make real money by providing other services on top of their "basic" hosting offers, but no one looks AWS and think "AWS is locking people and charging crazy prices on S3 but they can't get a compelling alternative".

If anything, all these "what if scenarios" are almost making me wish that Zuck does pull it off.

Gitlab is open source, but some features are only available in their Enterprise Edition. As the name suggests, unless you are looking for an alternative for a large company, the open source "Community" Edition is enough for all your needs.

I am working on fediverser, which aims to create bridges between the "traditional" (i.e, shitty) social media networks to try to bring the people who post good content.

Brave’s objective is to create a system that looks altruistic but they control it and take a ever increasing cut.

I don't see how? All they control is the ad network. Viewing the ads is opt-in. The ads they displayed are stored in device, and the code that selects which ads to show you is open source. The system for verifying ad views can be audited by any party. The token is on the blockchain so they can't manipulate and the contract does not have any special rules.

Assuming a world where Brave gets significant market share, the "worst" they could do would be to change the promised revenue share, but if they went to do that then users would lose the incentive to opt-in into the ads, and they would more likely lose revenue and open themselves for competition. (That's a risk that could run even if they did everything right, by the way)

using a different browser is the only good way to protest.

That is not true. "Though Brave uses Chromium, Brave browsers do not (and will not) include WEI".

A problem would be if those contributions affect the project in a negative way.

And I could make the argument this is in the case with Mozilla and Firefox. Mozilla being so dependent of Google's revenue means that they will never take any measure that could be seen by Google as a credible threat to their business. Ask yourself why Firefox never included an ad-blocker by default or has kept its mobile browser crippled for so long, or got rid of FirefoxOS...