this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
71 points (87.4% liked)
Fediverse
28850 readers
772 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), Search Lemmy
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meta does a lot more than manage a Mastodon server. A single full-timer is likely all that is needed. Two to reduce burnout. Those costs are still high, but you shouldn't discredit the notion that eight full timers is an exaggeration. The top comments on the toot you link are the volunteers saying exactly that.
In practice, you'd need some redundancy because the admins will also need time off, vacation, get sick.
So, I am not disputing that 8 FTE is too much. What I want to make clear is this: there is not a single instance out there that is getting enough money in donations to pay even one admin, which is a clear indication that the model is not sustainable.
18 months after the API debacle on Reddit, most of the instances are still around. If the model was not sustainable, wouldn't have all closed?
Your question is as short-sighted as "If global warming is real, then why is it snowing in Southern Europe?"
No, a system that is not sustainable does not imply that all the ecosystem dies simultaneously. It just means that it relies on a continuous stream of idealistic people coming in, willing to help, only to collapse eventually later.
This logic would mean all nonprofits would fail. It's flawed.
What do you mean? Even non-profits have income and pay salaries to the people working there.
If admins need more money, they can ask for help to their communities.
Lemmy.zip seems to be doing okay: https://lemmy.zip/post/29448608?scrollToComments=true
Lemm.ee had a question about a donation link and never answered https://lemm.ee/post/49850162?scrollToComments=true
I know a few instance admins who runs their instances on hardware they would be using anyway.
Again, if some server admins need help with money, they should definitely ask, but I haven't seen such request ever.
Do you realize the issue with this reasoning? Here's a hint.
You don't see admins "asking for money" to help because there are not that many admins that are willing to put up all the work that is required to run an instance upfront. Let's normalize the idea that admins and moderators should get paid for their work, and you can bet that there will be a lot more people showing up.
My local library has been been run by volunteers for 50 years.
Of course it's not trying to take over Amazon, but that's probably not a realistic goal anyway.
Not happening. People are okay to pay a few bucks to support their admins, but expecting a full time salary isn't realistic. This is not Wikipedia, the text-based link aggregators are becoming a thing of the past. Look at the younger generations and ask them how many use Reddit. The new popular format is TikTok and shorts, that's where the userbase and money is now.
Bad analogy. A library in isolation can still exist and it does not require the network to have value to its community. An instance in isolation is useful, but the real value comes from its ability to participate in the larger network.
Libraries also are not the drivers of content generation. The motivation for an author to write a book is not "oh, I really want to get my book in the local library!". They want to reach an audience. They rely on a whole cottage industry of agents, publishers, marketing, distributors, etc. The same for Hollywood movies.
To their credit, what tech companies did was to remove a lot of these middlemen. But to their fault, the main reason they were so successful at doing this is that they managed to do that by taking their revenue from their "main business" and running these operations at a loss, forcing their competitors out of existence.
The focus was on volunteering projects lasting a long time.
Which is the wrong focus.
I can bet that there are kitchen soups that are operated for decades already, but this means shit to me and to most people who don't want to live in a world where fast food chains and ultra-processed crap is the main source of "cheap, universally available" food.
As usual, agree to disagree