• rglullis@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Let’s get rid of open registration instances and look for alternative models that are actually sustainable:

    • Small servers run by self-hosting enthusiasts for their friends and family.
    • Institutional servers (schools/universities running servers for faculty and students, companies running servers for their own employees)
    • Servers run by media institutions for journalists + maybe for subscribers (on a separate domain)
    • Servers provided by telcos, tied to their phone service (get a contract for mobile and that gives you access to our AP server)
    • Commercial providers who charge a flat subscription for access (mastodon.green, omg.lol, my own communick)

    We need to get rid of the idea that we can have a sustainable Fediverse infra running on volunteers alone. It is not working, all the growth potential that we have is stunted because people keep lying to themselves.

    • rumimevlevi@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You can’t ask people to join small servers that have the biggest risk of shutting down without creating migration toola thst migrate all the content along the likes and comments

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Size by itself is not the main predictor of risk. My instance is the only one on the Lemmy/kbin/Piefed side of the Fediverse that is exclusive for paying subscribers. It has never had more than 10 active users. This week it is celebrating its second anniversary - coincidentally I set it up on the same day as lemm.ee - and it has outlived a whole lot of instances.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago
      • Institutional servers (schools/universities running servers for faculty and students, companies running servers for their own employees)

      This is the best long term strategy. News orgs should be hosting their own Mastodon instances at the very least. Same with schools and government.

      It solves a number of problems - for them. So many news organizations and government offices are reliant on Xitter. That means that they are at the mercy of the owner of the platform for their messages to the public. Hosting their own instance puts them in charge. They can get out messages reliably and the public can trust that they are who they say… Just like an email address or URL.

      Schools pay lots of money to private corporations to run bespoke university messaging systems, and are likewise reliant on those companies to provide administrative services such as moderating. Moving those communications in-house will be cheaper and simpler.

      We should all be pressuring schools and local governments to adopt these technologies.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        But that can not be the only solution. My university offered email accounts for every student. In 1999 this was a very big deal because the commercial services were super limited - Yahoo! Mail offered 2MB, IIRC. But the account was only available while you were an student.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I think it’s the best starting point. University and government resources can handle the volume and will motivate widespread adoption. In one sense, it is only kicking the can down the road, but it is kicking it into a future that will be better prepared for these questions.

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            I am not disagreeing, I just think these options are not mutually exclusive. We should try all of those that we can. And while I can not force schools and universities to implement their own Mastodon instance for their students, I can pay a little bit per month to support developers and service providers of the libre platforms out there.

    • Null User Object@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Let’s get rid of open registration instances

      How?

      Nobody is stopping any of your bullet points from happening. Those are all options today. Any one of those groups can spin up an instance and nobody is going to stop them. Some already have

      But isn’t the idea of forcing someone to (not) run their own server however they want antithetical to the whole concept of the fediverse?

      You can defederate your personal server from open registration servers if you want. But you can’t “get rid of open registration instances.” That’s just stupid.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I am not saying that there should be an executive order to make open registrations illegal, or to force anyone to do it.

        What I am saying is that the admins themselves should change their attitude about it. I understand that most of them are doing out of generosity and because they hope that by offering free spaces they will get more people to join, but I’d hope that by now most people would have realized that this is (a) not sustainable and (b) counterproductive. The reason that we don’t see a lot of the alternative models around is because the open registration instances suck out the air of everyone else in the economy.

        If we keep working with this assumption that open registrations are fundamental to the Fediverse, we are going to continue is the slow decline to irrelevance. The Fediverse is never going to die, but it will be forever stunted in its potential.

        • Null User Object@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          That I can agree with. But I think it’s just inevitable growing pains. Free and open instances will, over time, shut down because they’re obviously unsustainable, so they won’t be sustained.

          As they do, people will be left searching for instances to move to, and more and more, they’ll find that free instances just aren’t an available.

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Free and open instances will, over time, shut down because they’re obviously unsustainable, so they won’t be sustained.

            How many of the 5.5k users from lemm.ee are going to say “Lesson learned. If I want an instance that is sustainable I should look for a professional instance or run my own”? I’m not going to say zero, but I really doubt it’s going to be “more than 3”.

            The problem here is that while individual instances may die, there is always a new sucker enthusiast coming up thinking “my server will be different”.

            • Demigodrick@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              Lemm.ee didn’t shut down because it was financially unsustainable though. It shut down because the admin team didn’t want to do it anymore.

              Plenty of people have offered to take lemm.ee on and AFAIK nothing has progressed, but handled in a different way there could have been continuity and no need for users to transition away.

              Given that the issue wasn’t one of finance and rather one of effort/will, how does charging for access change anything? The owner could decide they have had enough, walk away, and shut everything down anyway, no?

              • rglullis@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                It shut down because the admin team didn’t want to do it anymore.

                It shut down because the admin team didn’t want to do it for free anymore. There were just too many people, too many bad actors for little reward. By charging for access, you manage to both increase the reward and reduce the amount of people, so the whole equation changes significantly.

                how does charging for access change anything? The owner could decide they have had enough, walk away, and shut everything down anyway, no?

                Sure, but the amount of pain that I get from my ~50 paying customers is infinitely less than the headaches that you’ll be getting.

              • rglullis@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Interesting… the more time passes and your previous arguments fall along with the instances that you supported, the more you are resorting to tone policing.

                  • rglullis@communick.news
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    I didn’t insult anyone. You are putting names out there of admins of existing instances when I was talking about the general story of about how there are constant wheel of new people coming up.

                    You are gasping as straws, as if ostracizing me would ever validate your arguments. This is getting tiring.

    • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      If you get rid of open registration instances and start charging, you’ll immediately lose huge amounts of users back to Reddit or whatever alternative is free to them. The echo chamber will be even more pronounced, and whatever success Lemmy/Mbin/Piefed have had will dry up.

      Most people don’t want to self host. And most people aren’t willing to pay. So you have an issue in front of you. Do you actually want users and interactions? Or do you just want a place where very dedicated nerds can crow to each other about whatever self-hosting tricks they pulled off while occasionally backed by an addicted whale (who, upon noting the monotony and small userbase, will probably move on quickly)?

      Everything, especially digital things, is backed by a small group of whales supporting everyone else. It’s a mix between addiction and community-building instincts. Right now, said whales are the server hosts and a handful of users. Because of the desire to lead a community, and the addiction of social media, it keeps going. You say it isn’t sustainable. I say it’s a cycle. The specific instances don’t matter until it becomes a corporate situation. All that matters is that there’s at least one instance with enough people active to provide the gratification to the whale.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you get rid of open registration instances and start charging, you’ll immediately lose huge amounts of users

        That is not necessarily true. you can have for example just a bunch of people that like to self host and they will invite their friend. This will be just a small constellation of smaller instances and they don’t have to be completely open registration.

        Most people don’t want to self host.

        You don’t need most. If 1% of the people can show initiative to self host and serve 100 people, it should be enough.

        Everything, especially digital things, is backed by a small group of whales supporting everyone else.

        Bad economics and bad incentives. What you are describing is not just a natural law that can be avoided, but it is part of the reason that we are in this mess.

        Software has this amazing property of being virtually free to copy. But the things that we do it and the labor that is required of us still has a cost. We need to bring back some sense of human scale to digital platforms, and the only way to do it is by letting us set a limit to the size of the organizations.