Non profit coops. It need to be people owned.
this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
2 points (75.0% liked)
Fediverse
31319 readers
1436 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)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It need to be people owned.
Sounds good on paper, but the practical implementations make them not any different than any other small service provider. cosocial.ca is a Canadian co-op for Mastodon. To become a member, you must pay CA$50 per year. What kind of "ownership" does that give to you as member? Nothing, really. You can not take control of the domain or the server.
At best, you'll get some bureaucratic oversight and the "right" to make proposals regarding changes in governance: "use the money to upgrade the server or to pay the admin", "Allow some members to get free access because they are facing some hardship, yes or no?" etc.
But at the end of the day, is any of that "ownership" making you (or the other members) better off compared to a service like mastodon.green, which simply charges $1/month and gives you an account?
In my country a coop is a legal entity and it does give you actual ownership. And we do have data coops where people pay, and vote on how services should be developed.
Can you make a list of coops that provide service to its members and is overall cheaper than the equivalent commercial offerings?
Why would it have to be cheaper? I’m not going to make a list. It’s a normal form of organisation in my country. For example my whole apartment complex is owned by the people who live there. We vote on what we want to pay in rent and how we want to spent the money.
And the same can be done with data coops. Here is one: https://data.coop/
There are others, with other values.
Why would it have to be cheaper?
"Being cheaper" is a very good proxy for "being more accessible" and "easier to be universally accepted".
If the coop model gives you some (real or perceived) benefit to you, great. But if the cost of acquiring/maintaining those benefits are too high, it becomes more of yet-another status symbol than an actual development for society at large.
You’ll never be able to compete with mega corps that can scale and sell your data, in order to provide a service for free. Price will never be the selling point of a more democratic web.
You’ll never be able to compete with mega corps
I gave an example elsewhere on this post: cosocial (a coop) charges $50/year from its members for Mastodon access. mastodon.green (not a coop) charges $12/year. Communick (not a coop) charges $29/year for Mastodon and Lemmy and Matrix and Funkwhale with 250GB of storage. omg.lol charges $20/year for Mastodon, and some other cool web services.
All of these small and independent service providers are offering more than a coop, and they can not scale beyond a certain point. If the service is built on FOSS, then it means that if the business model becomes successful it will face competition.
Painting co-ops as the only alternative against Big Tech is the mistake, here. Smaller ISVs could make things cheaper, serve the market ethically and efficiently without requiring everyone to worry about "owner duties".
You don’t have to have everybody worry about owner duty. Cooperatives doesn’t have to be tiny organisations. You can have full time employees and so on: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cooperative_movement
load more comments
(2 replies)
Does Flipboard fit this description? They are part of fedi already
Yes I think so. If they had an ad free versions I’d pay for it.
Fediverse is open source and decentralized, so any for-profit model could leverage it without asking for anyone's permission. There are already for-profit companies that build and maintain apps to access Fediverse platforms. Meta Threads and Tumblr are both integrating into ActivityPub as their own hosts. I imagine in a future where Fediverse grows rampantly, the hosts with the best overall user experience will be for-profit. We live in a world of global capitalism, good things cost money most of the time.
good things cost money most of the time.
I've found it's the exact opposite: the best things in life are free.
It's actually built-in to your argument. None of this would be possible without free protocols that are accessible to everyone.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Think beyond VC backed companies. Those get tons of attention because they need it.
Investors = bad. I whole heartedly agree.
For profit doesn’t have to be bad. What if it were a worker/user co-op. Have a free product and have a paid product. If you pay for the product you get a (just one) vote. If you work for the company you get a vote. Users won’t vote for maximizing profit. But the profit means you don’t have to beg for donations.
Craigslist would be another example. For profit but no major investors so doesn’t have to prioritize profits.
My home instance is starting to do some of this, it’s talked about a lot in https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/div0
Ghost have their code open source and offer paid for hosting which is not unreasonable as you'd to pay to send bulk emails anyway even if you self-hosted (although there are free tiers from some providers if your only send a few hundred a month).
Let's look at email as a history example, google gobbled up everyone for gmail.
If fediverse goes the way of email where it infinitely will grow and compete for the most part eventually businesses offering instances as services will be the norm, we can just jump ahead and try to it right before big tech starts to gobble it up.
view more: next ›