Bluesky teases paid subscription, Bluesky+, in new mockup : technology

[–] [email protected] 53 points 2 days ago (8 children)

While a lot of us hate ads and subscriptions, I have the unpopular opinion that they are generally still viable considering the state of how we use the internet today.

The thing is, I think that if there are ads, there should be the ability to pay to remove them, and if there is a subscription, there should be an ad-based tier as an alternative.

Let your users choose, respect their preference for funding model, and allow them to choose if they want to support a given monetization policy.

Of course, seeing as how they raised $15m from VCs, I doubt this will be nothing but what will inevitably devolve into a pay-for-reach scheme similar to Twitter Blue (or, sorry "X Premium") that just leads to those with wealth getting more engagement, and a louder voice.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (3 children)

I've never seen an ad-based tier on a Mastodon instance and the network does just fine 🤷‍♂️

Without executives leeching money from going to the actual cost of servers things seem to work better! Go figure!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Among every server that "do just fine," there are more instances that are just gone for not having proper funding, especially for non-Western instance where paying for social media in not a common thing. I'm from Indonesian, and almost every Indonesian instance are cease to exist except for Misskey.id.

While Mastodon does not support ads, other fediverse software like Misskey support it. Misskey.io, the second biggest fedi instance after Mastodon.social, runs ads and subscription simutaniously.

Their ads is merely community ads. Letting their community promote their indie games, manga serialization, artbook release, online event gathering, etc. I think that might be replicatable for Western instance like Mastodon.art or Pixelfed.art.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

However I don't see blue sky following this model, I do support user funded content and It's infuriating that we as an open source community have to recreate it time and time again. Large corporations buy up the social media and monetize it and mine it for metadata and AdSense. Meta, alphabet, Microsoft and to a greater sense now OpenAI.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Server hardware isn’t free. At the end of the day, SOMEONE has to pay the bills. Either you are the customer, or the product. If you insist on being the product, you don’t get to be surprised when platforms focus on the actual customers that actually pay the bills, by enshittifying the platform.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When you are not a predatory bussiness your "clients" are not your enemy. So donations come in.

People are willing to pay for something that they use. What people don't like is paying for making someone rich without working.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 14 hours ago

Well said! My instance doesn't need ads because the servers don't care about profits.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because most mastodon instances are running off donations, and have a relatively small user base.

The kind of people who use Mastodon are substantially more likely to be heavily invested in the technology and the vision, and thus more likely to donate.

Expand that out to the billions of people who use social media, and you have a funding problem.

Not to mention the much lesser need for moderation due to more homogeneous and well-intentioned micro communities and substantially lower rate of bots, which all means less "staff" you have to pay too.

It's not a matter of minimum viability, it's a matter of scale.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

"Many small instances that can survive with a couple of donations" seems much more sustainable than a handful of large ad-selling business powered by Mastodon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago

Please explain how having ads or subscriptions in any way requires you to have a marketing department and c-suite executives that get to siphon money from operational budgets.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Ads and monetization have ruined the internet compared to what it was. Early Internet was completely without ads, and things were run by people who were actually interested in the content presented, not in profits.
I have donated a couple of times to Lemmy.world, because servers and work is needed for it to work. But I refuse to accept any ads anywhere. Ads do NOT improve content IMO, it merely concentrates content with commercial sites.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Ads and monetization have ruined the internet compared to what it was. Early Internet was completely without ads, and things were run by people who were actually interested in the content presented, not in profits.

How early are we talking here? If you mean pre-Web, in the Usenet era it was standard practice to pay a subscription to join a Usenet server. If you mean the early Web, ads were already everywhere by the mid-90s.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

There's distinction between targeted ads and community ads.

Mainstream internet is bad for targeted ads and for-profit site that plaster ads as maximum as possible.

Fediverse instance like Misskey.io runs ads, but all of them community ads. Letting their community promote their indie games, manga serialization, artbook release, online event gathering, etc.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The early internet also couldn't provide most of the larger sites and platforms we now use. As it grew, it had to monetize in order to actually operate. If you want something outside the scope of a passion project, you need funding outside the scope of a passion project. The early internet did so well with people who actually cared because they didn't have to operate platforms that couldn't just care. They were operating things like personal sites and chatrooms, not social networks, document editors, or newsrooms.

Federated servers with donation-based models can function as of now, but you'd have a hard time covering hosting costs if every normal social media user began using federated platforms. There's simply too many of them.

I'm not saying ads improve content, I'm not saying they're the best model, and if you refuse to accept ads anywhere, that's fine, but sites simply can't all provide services for free, and if we want sites with the same functionality we have today, they need to monetize somehow.

Donations are definitely an option (I mean, hey, look at Wikipedia) but it isn't necessarily viable for every online venture. For a lot of platforms, monetization must be compelled in some way, whether it's by pushing ads, or paywalling with a subscription. The best option a platform can offer if it's not capable of just running off donations alone is to let users choose the monetization they prefer to deal with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no larger site the internet wouldn't be better without.
Google, Meta, Twitter, Youtube are all part of the monetization disease.
The internet scaled on the back of subscribers, not big monetization, which frankly suck performance with tracking and ads rather than adding to it.
We are on Lemmy, and lemmy would obviously work even better without competition from big monetized platforms.
Communities doing passion projects serve the project. Without youtube we could have alternatives that worked better, because Youtube wouldn't be there to attract all the attention.

Back in the day we had indexing sites, fora, and also search before google. All things that helped finding interesting sites. The interesting sites of passion projects have become rare. And almost the entire internet is now driven for profit instead of interest and passion. I tell you, I can really see the difference, there is 100 times more irrelevant noise for the same amount of content.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no larger site the internet wouldn’t be better without.

You're targeting the larger sites as they exist, not the concepts and underlying functionality.

If you want social media, no matter if it's Lemmy or Reddit, it costs a hell of a lot of money to host that. If you wanted social media, even a federated model like Lemmy or Mastodon to actually scale to all the people that are otherwise using other sites like Meta's, you have to fund it somehow, and those funding models change at scale.

I'm not saying needing money like this is good, but it's simply objectively difficult to fund any platform, for any purpose, when handling so many users. The only reason Lemmy and other federated platforms are funded so well right now is because they can be done at a hobbyist level, for a hobbyist cost, in most cases.

Once you scale up to the whole world, your funding model simply has to change. Donations can work, but they're much more difficult to get working than either ads or subscriptions in terms of securing long-term funding at scale.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If you want social media, no matter if it’s Lemmy or Reddit, it costs a hell of a lot of money to host that.

Seems to be doing fine, if scaled up cost and contributions would even out. IMO you actually proved my point.
The scale of the internet is mainly based on ISP's and those are paid by users. Sites can be distributed, the technology to do that has existed since the mid 90's.
These distribution models work fine, and do not have to deal with the added tasks of ads and trackers commercial sites use.
You could pretty easily build a youtube like site around it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's possible, but funding changes at scale.

For example, more people using federated protocols like Mastodon or Lemmy are going to be early adopters that care more about underlying technology and have stronger ideological views about online platforms, compared to, say, your average Facebook mom.

So of course, they're going to be more likely to donate. Once you scale outside of those groups into groups of people who don't care as much, and are less invested in the technology, you get less donations.

Sites can work on donation models (again, see Wikipedia) but it's much more difficult to have such a system stay afloat than one where monetization is much more heavily required, and thus generates more revenue.

It's not ideal, but it's also difficult to have such a system work otherwise in many cases.

and do not have to deal with the added tasks of ads and trackers commercial sites use.

They use these things because it makes them more money than it costs. If ads and trackers costed more to implement than not having them, then they wouldn't use them in the first place.

You could pretty easily build a youtube like site around it.

PeerTube exists if you're interested, by the way.

Sites can be distributed, the technology to do that has existed since the mid 90’s.

Certain aspects of sites can be distributed, but others can't as easily be. For instance, you could have a P2P federated network where every user of, say, Mastodon, helps host and redistribute content from posts, but that's not how these systems are built right now, and they'd have difficulties with things like maintaining accurate like counts.

It would be ideal if they could be built in a way that removes the need for a central platform in the first place, and can run on general-purpose devices, and thus doesn't carry costs that require monetization, but because they aren't built like that, they will eventually need to monetize as they scale up. Unless they change the entire underlying technological model of these federated platforms, they will inevitably need to monetize if they gain enough users outside the (relatively speaking) small bubble of dedicated users that can easily fund a platform through hobby money and donations.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

So of course, they’re going to be more likely to donate. Once you scale outside of those groups into groups of people who don’t care as much, and are less invested in the technology, you get less donations.

This is true with how things are now, but an ad free internet would look very different, and users would behave differently and have different expectations.
Note that I'm not arguing for a total non commercial Internet, things like subscriptions and Steam are fine, it's things like Google Meta Twitter and the likes, where the users are actually the product, and the customers are the advertisers.

PeerTube exists if you’re interested, by the way.

Yes I know, but youtube makes it irrelevant, because everybody post there.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem is that today ads are against privacy so the ad-tier are really invasive in term of tracking and because their services tracks you when using ad-tier they will when using noad-tier. For example if you pay YouTube premium you'll not have ads in YouTube but your consumption habits will serve google ads services to serve you ads on all almost all sites of the world

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

True, but that's a matter of technical implementation that I believe should be changed along with any proposed change to monetization models like I'd previously mentioned.

For instance, the site should delay ad loading until you pick "yes, I want to see ads," or if you pick "I have a subscription" and sign in, it shouldn't load them at all.

This isn't impossible to do, it's just something they haven't made as an easy implementation yet, since things like Google's ad services auto-load when a page is loaded, since no site really has a mechanism to manually enable or disable the core requests to Google based on user input.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago

You're right, I fought that people are exasperated of seeing ads but when they are not present BUT their system is tracking you the same way, so people are okay with it as long as nothing pop on their screen. Loading trackers in the background or not.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

The problem with ads is advertisers want to be able to target specific groups of people, which means the platform needs to violate your privacy to get that information.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 140 points 3 days ago (1 children)

People keep acting like hosting this shit and developing it is free. Its not. Donate to your instance and the development of the back end and all the opensource software you use. Bluesky has 20 million people using it it's no surorise they are looking for a profit model that won't scare the base off. I would rather it be subs instead of endless ads and algorithm tweaks.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Preach it, that money is far more well spent on supporting a community.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

I get so many bots following me and wanting to hook up. I'm an ugly redhead, you're not fooling me.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Would love to hear about Mastodon in the news (or by anyone with a following) for once instead of Bluesky

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Mastodon needs to be newsworthy first. Otherwise the news we'd constantly hear is "Mastodon exists. Nobody cares".

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago

Then it’ll have to become more popular and user friendly.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (6 children)

Lmao and all these idiots will gladly pay it because it's a slick corporate product, and they'll turn CryptoQueen Jay Graber into another fucking billionaire leech on our fucking system.

Great job everyone, meanwhile Mastodon still exists and you won't be contributing to building another billionaire crytpo freak to control our country's politics by using it. Also, all Mastodon features will continue to be free to everyone.

Jay Graber literally got her start in tech working on Zcash, a privacy-focused crypto-currency. She was happy to make a deal with Blockchain Capital, a Venture Capital firm made up entirely of cryptobros and 'effective altruism' freaks.

But I mean, this is America, where we say "Fuck community projects!" the corporations I hate and bitch about all the time pamper me like a baby and I must have that pampering!

"Corporations rob us of our dignity and independence."

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 days ago (2 children)

$8/72 per month/year seems too high for most people.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 39 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Gee whiz wow who could have possibly seen this coming.

But people have been assuring me that it is a federated protocol, so I guess I'll just join another instance. I'm sure there is a list somewhere.... It's coming... Any day now...

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 3 days ago (8 children)

The Twitter format is crap. It's bad for search (Mastodon users don't wanna be searchable). There is a huge recency bias: observed in echo waves of circlejerk memes (CEO stuff being the most recent one). It limits discussion depth compared to the reddit format. Here on lemmy people often read all comments, and I like it even if mine get downvoted :)

The subscription model rarely works. Netflix now shows ads, Twitter is still in the red. The donation/self-hosted model is even less successful. I have an unpopular opinion that ads are still the best way to pay for servers and staff. Reddit users hated ads, and that led to them turning into a data repo for Gemini.

I hope Fedi becomes more accepting of ads, but it's a tall order given that it's still mostly pinkos and nerds.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Mastodon users don't wanna be searchable

Debatable. People don't want their private account searchable. Creators and news account want their account and their post to be discoverable.

The subscription model rarely works.

It's not that the subscription model doesn't work. It's the investor that demands things to grow even more all the time. There are plenty of service that simply deliver good stuff without investor demand and ended being sustainable for years.

Fedi becomes more accepting of ads

At least, some non-Western fediverse instance runs ads. Notably the second biggest instance in fediverse, Misskey.io. Their ads are community ads, like promoting indie games, vtuber, comic books, IRL gallery event, etc. They also did subscription providing additional cosmetics like Discord. Everyone's happy.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think the Xitter or even Discord model is poisonous for a community. It essentially creates a caste system where equal exchange can’t happen. In part because it attracts a very special kind of user base that creates a special kind of culture.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It essentially creates a caste system where equal exchange can’t happen.

If you experience Nitro members being seen as more important than others, you're in the wrong Discord communities.

I've never seen someone being glorified because they are a Nitro user, and although I've seen some member pretending to be superior because they have Nitro, they were quickly to be ridiculed and put back in their place for trying to gloat about paying for it.

Source: been on Discord for over 9 years.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

You’re thinking about it too literally. It really comes down to emotes, stickers and the like. That’s the Discord currency and before you say you can just post pictures, that’s not the same and not treated alike. It’s not about being ridiculed. It’s about being excluded from the conversation. You simply won’t be acknowledged the same way if you can’t communicate in the same style. It’s not even about one party being better. It’s more of a small rift between the two. The divide is subtle. Perhaps too subtle for most to care but it’s there.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You and I are on very different Discord communities.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Yeah, this sounds like the whole "green bubble" thing that I heard about. Where kids were seen as poor if they had a green bubble in iOS, because that signified you weren't on an iPhone. That was way after my time in high school, but if it had been a problem when I was there, I know I would have not wanted to associate with any kids being that judgy.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Perhaps too subtle for most to care but it’s there

I'd rather say it's only something to care about when you are in high school or peaked in high school.

Nobody cares in community servers who's got animoji and who can send a sticker from another server.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Had Twitter added a paid tier early on as it scaled up - when it was still largely the only short form blogging platform - we could potentially have avoided...so much shit we now live in. Twitter was never profitable, so it just kept adding ads until that wasn't sustainable. And then dipshit bought it and really turned it into the nazi place.

Twitter always had problems, but I think we can generally agree it wasn't a pretty good service for lots of things. Breaking news, sports, even science, etc. It had actual (not amazing, but existing) moderation. There's maybe a world out there where a Twitter that isn't owned by some idiot doesn't help influence an election that we now have to deal with for decades to come.

That's all wishful thinking, of course, and Twitter is not THE REASON the U.S. is trash. But there was a path where Twitter didn't turn into just Truth Social 2.0.

Adding a paid tier to Bluesky might sound like "enshitification," but if it simply keeps the company afloat then there's potentially less chance of it becoming Twitter 2.0, so to speak. Otherwise, there's probably a straight path to ads then creditors calling in debts then selling then elon just buys it, too.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Just playing devil's advocate here, but they have to make money somehow, right? It's either this or advertisements. And I fucking hate advertisements. I say the only way they could truly drop the ball is if they opt for both subscriptions and advertisements. The only other option is donations. And I honestly can't see that as a viable strategy for something like Bluesky.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago (3 children)

Donation model would be completely viable if they actually allowed other people to run federated servers.

But it's been a VC Trojan horse from the start.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How does that even work for those hosting their own? Do I just give myself Bluesky+? Because all those features I already have by virtue of hosting my own data.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

They’re really speedrunning the enshittification, aren’t they?

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I am happy to pay for a service I’m using and getting value from if the price is fair, and if they can find a model where it’s sustainable with some % paid and some still free so that it’s available to everyone, and do that without ads or data scraping or treating users as a commodity I think that’s as close as we’ll get to tech utopia.

The “users are the product” tech model needs to die. We will need to start paying for our stuff. But I think that will create a better internet.

load more comments (1 replies)

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots