Look, I am sorry. I didn't mean to offend you and I didn't mean to "diagnose you". You asked me why I was responding as if you are angry, and I tried to illustrate how your responses are sounding on this side of the conversation. I might be completely wrong, but this is how I am perceiving it.
rglullis
joined 2 years ago
I am not angry so I’m not sure what I’ve said that deserved that patronizing aside.
If you are not angry, you are certainly reading as someone who is facing an amygdala hijack. Your responses do not seem as someone who is collected and you do not seem willing to listen to what others are trying to express.
Case in point:
farmers and Walmarts have some features they share (...) Are you saying they don’t? That they are completely different top to bottom?
You are right, we are talking only about the features they share (i.e, profit-seeking) and whether this means that they should be treated equally. I didn't say they were completely different. But do they have to?
Let me try again: you are asserting that a small-scale farmer who works out on their own volition and makes a living by selling their produce at a higher price that it cost them (i.e, seeking profit) is a net-negative to society and as unethical as a huge corporation like Walmart. You are saying "the scale doesn't matter, any one working looking for profit is bad". Is this correct or am I misrepresenting you?
I’m saying scale is irrelevant because profit motive corrupts other values
And OP and I are saying that this generalization is shortsighted. You end up putting on the same bag:
- Small farmers and Walmart
- A local restaurant owner and Darden
- Independent commercial software providers and Facebook.
By treating them as equal because "both of them are seeking profit", you are left with an economic system that is unable to grow to match the demands of the people.
Make an actual point.
I did, many times. It's just that you don't want to hear it.
The point is "Community is not enough" (I did link to the blog post, didn't I?) and I've been saying since 2022 that the Fediverse will not be able to grow until is dominated by this belief "that every profit-seeking business is bad and therefore should be rejected".
You can be mad at me all you want, you can be upset at this sad reality all you want, you can cry in a pillow all you need, but you can not say that the Fediverse has been a success story. We've had so many opportunities handed out to us to take this place and grow to become a viable alternative for everyone but we squander it every time because the loud minority of ideologues keep screaming "no businesses here!".
Scale however does not matter.
Of course the scale of the business matters. If scale doesn't matter, a bunch of farmers selling their produce at a local market would be bad for their local community as Walmart.
keep investors/a for-profit structure out.
Putting these two in the same bag is a mistake, this is what OP and I are saying.
Context and scale matters. Even though both small and big companies depend "on profit", the methods they use and incentives that drive them are wildly different.
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.
coops and non-profits and all sorts of structures exist for way more complex and difficult to quantify organizations
The fact that they exist does not imply that they were ever able to serve their community/customers/users universally. You either get some people being served well at an inefficient overall cost, or you get everyone being served poorly by a broken system which can not afford to provide adequate resources to workers.
IOW, I'm not arguing that "coops" can not exist. What I am arguing is we will never get rid of Big Tech if we keep forcing the idea that only community-owned services are acceptable models of governance.
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".
Is it really that difficult to think we can financially quantify people’s roles?
In a centrally-planned system? Yes, it is very hard.
I was a freelancer for 15 years, I had to quantify jobs constantly.
I assume you mean that you had to give a quote to a client?
If that is the case, your client has sole decision-making power and has "only" to evaluate whether the price you were asking for your labor is lower than the value you'd be bringing them.
How does this compare with a coop, where (presumably) the member-owners have all to agree on the price of labor? Are they going to accept to pay market rate for the people working there? Are they first find whoever is willing to work for the cheapest and then set the price on that?
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.
How do you decide "what they deserve"? What should be the payment for a moderator, or an instance admin? What of you have someone also making contributions to the software and as such is in a position to add features exclusive to one instance?
There is not a single Mastodon &server out there that have increased donations or reach a sustainable level after they reach a few thousand users.
Also, there are not enough admins around "doing it because they want to" if we want the Fediverse to grow a few millions users.
Instagram has 2 billion users, Pixelfed largest instance has less than 200k active users. We would have to get 10 THOUSAND admins in order to compete with Instagram.