I prefer good faith discussions please. I love the Fediverse and love what it can be long term. The problem is that parts of the culture want nothing to do with financial aspect. Many are opposed to ads, memberships, sponsorships etc The “small instances” response does nothing to positively contribute to the conversation. There are already massive instances and not everyone wants to self host. People are concerned with larger companies coming to the Fedi but these beliefs will drive everyday users to those instances. People don’t like feeling disposable and when you hamstring admins who then ultimately shut down their instances that’s exactly how people end up feeling. There has to be an ethical way of going about this. So many people were too hard just to be told “too bad” “small instances” I don’t want to end up with a Fediverse ran by corporations because they can provide stability.

  • Shadow@lemmy.caEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    Well yeah, compare us to 20 years of wikipedia and of course there’s going to be a massive difference. I’m not saying we’re going to follow them, but they are an example of success in this area.

    Wikipedia employed a single server until 2004 when the server setup was expanded into a distributed multitier architecture. Server downtime in 2003 led to the first fundraising drive.

    • Lauchs@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      It’s also an explicitly philanthropic venture with a noble mission about being the source of human knowledge.

      I love our memes but they aren’t quite the same.

      Wikipedia received almost 400k in 2005 and more than 1.5 million in donations by 2006.

      For what it’s worth, a lot of instances are funding just like wikipedia did but if we want to expand with full-time devs, moderators etc (which is what I think we’ll need for long term sustainability) I just don’t think wikipedia’s success is a particularly reasonable comparison.