What does this mean for John Mastodon's grandkids?
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
477 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
29435 readers
912 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 [email protected]!
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
Yes. He is not a an-i-mal.
I feel like you've answered the wrong comment, and this a-ni-mal(? am I saying that right?) refers to someone else
This is a great move. Governance is extremely important for bigger OSS projects, and the "benevolent dictator" model has its limits.
We need to grow our annual operating budget to €5 million in 2025.
What for?
How many active users are going to be served by mastodon.social and mastodon.online? Is the infrastructure being provided by the companies counted as part of this budget?
How many more users are going to join the Mastodon network of servers thanks to the missing features that are planned to be released this year?
there's a big difference between running a service on volunteers, and having full-time folks to keep things running / answer the regulation discussions / keep maintaining / keep adding the features that folks are looking for. This is not primarily an infrastructure spend. There's also an amount of legal work involved, unfortunately. So, those are some of the elements we're looking at.
Sure. But at the end of the day, economics is just a big game of resource allocation. 5M€ can get you quite a long way, and I'm wondering if we could have better use of those resources than by putting it on Mastodon.
Can it? Because I wouldn't try to run a social media company with less than that. It's kind of shocking they make do with a tenth of it. Which I guess is helped by being staffed by the equivalent of a mid-sized McDonalds franchise.
If I was going to spend that much on anything beyond servers and full time employees I would spend it on marketing, though.
Nobody wants to spend money on legal work, but at a certain point it becomes necessary. It's not like they met up in a board meeting, discussed where money could best be spent, and decided that lawyers should be a priority.
However, if Mastodon goes down this path and does it well, they can create legal precedence that might benefit all open/federated social media organizations that follow. Especially in the current climate we could benefit a lot from having a strong social media actor representing the interests of an open web, in opposition to the armies of lawyers hired by the fascists of commercial social media.
Of course, when I donate to Mastodon I imagine all my money goes to developers. But rationally I'm aware that this might be a bit utopian.
5M€ can get you quite a long way, and I'm wondering if we could have better use of those resources than by putting it on Mastodon.
What are you suggesting? That the money donated to Mastodon not be used on Mastodon?
They are also the main developers of the Mastodon software. It is not just hosting the service. The software needs to be able to compete with Bluesky and right now it quite simply does not. The only way to get the quality needed is to have some full time lead developers. Also they need some proper admins to run the websites. Mastodon social is at 250,000 active users right now, but it is also fairly likely to grow fast with what Elon is up to with Twitter. Just to compare Twitter used to have 7500 employees, with a 1000 today.
The software needs to be able to compete with Bluesky and right now it quite simply does not.
Mastodon has a 5 year headstart over Bluesky. Bluesky has more users, large players already getting into it and is raising money and is not ashamed to to be actively looking for a business model.
Meanwhile, Mastodon completely blew the opportunity it got when Musk bought Twitter and keeps repeating the same mistake of preaching to the converted.
What makes you think that more money would solve it? Their problem is not a lack of money, but a lack of ambition.
I don't agree at all with the lack of ambition.
Well the fact is yes, Mastodon is still relatively small compared to Facebook, X or Bluesky. Mastodon has actually 7,616,908 users total: https://fedidb.org/software/mastodon. Which is a huge number, but most likely a lot of bot accounts and non-active account to be honest.
Now the reason why is Mastodon is not as large as Bluesky is debatable. I actually blame ActivityPub protocol and the complex nature of trying to become a federated platform.
Let's be honest now, most people do not care (or don't have the technical knowledge) to understand federation or decentralization. Hence people will just jump to the easiest solution: A big centralized server, aka X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Bluesky. Same for search engines like Google.
The problem is not with the federated model, per se. Matrix is federated and it has 100M+ users.
The problem is a cultural one: Mastodon promoted federation along the idea that instances should be aligned with its member's identity. It's a mistake of their own doing, which was reflected on their own UX and marketing copy for a long time.
Surprised to see you of all people question why a project needs money to pay for things.
What for?
They said what for in the previous section, improving Mastodon's "usability, discoverability, and trust & safety". They tried to fundraise for a head of trust and safety last month, but failed. My impression is this is them trying to raise general donations to the project to pay for things like this, instead of individual campaigns for individual things.
Is the infrastructure being provided by the companies counted as part of this budget?
I thinks so, given the previous paragraph links to their sponsor page and says as such.
it's not (only) for the instance. This is for paying full time jobs to manage and develop the software
I know. The second question is meant to cover this...
The existing US-based non-profit entity, the 501(c)(3), will continue to function as a fundraising hub.
Wait, is the money transferred to the US then back to the EU? And will the US-based non-profit still continue to exist or will it be replaced by a truly European one?
The 501(c)(3) is a fundraising entity, and will continue to exist. There will be a new independent European non-profit that will "own" (for the want of a better word) the other entities. Legal structures and things are not my forte (IANAL), that's my understanding of what is happening in so far as I'm involved in the discussions and what I'm able to tell you.
No mention of the name Mastodon and copyrights which I seem to recall is one of the bigger complaints
These are part of the assets that will be transferred from the GmbH to the non-profit.
Given the concern, it would be good to be explicit in the blog post. What other assets does it genuinely need? The code is open source, people are free to host instances
Checking about getting it updated.
now updated.
Great news indeed then, go Mastodon!
Lemmy has the same issues I believe. Lots of people not exactly happy with the two core devs either