There are a million and one great reasons to be here on Lemmy, but using it to get cash from fellow users wallets is not one of them.
Comment on The Fediverse Isn’t the Future. It’s the Present We’ve Been Denied.
sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The fediverse won’t succeed just because it’s better. It will succeed if and only if people choose it.
Part of that is making it monetizable. Influencers can build huge followings (and make some cash) because existing platforms recommend their content to other users.
Mastodon devs have chosen not to provide recommendations and quote posts. That’s reasonable, but it reduces the utility of the platform, and it cedes space to Twitter & co.
To my knowledge, the only creator that’s exclusive to Lemmy is the unix surrealism author. Until it’s easy to monetize content, we’re gonna have a hard time attracting creators, and a hard time attracting users.
ToiletFlushShowerScream@lemmy.world 2 days ago
DandomRude@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I think we should be realistic. Content costs money because it requires a lot of effort. It’s naïve to think that content would just be created because people feel like posting something. If the Fediverse is to compete with companies like meta, this is only possible if there are opportunities for content creators to earn money. That should be self-evident, but it obviously isn’t here.
I’m not saying it’s necessary, but it is if the Fediverse is to have mainstream appeal.
Simply because the absolute majority of people are out and about where everyone is. And that’s where the content ist. And that’s the point: if you want good content, it costs money. It’s not just corporations that make a living from it.
What I want to say is this: The Fediverse could provide fairer conditions for the people who produce content. That makes sense and is necessary because the Internet lives from that.
I just don’t understand why people here don’t want to realize that work has to be paid for. That’s really strange.
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Things need to be paid for, but why does that mechanism need to be baked into the platform?
Imagine I’m the best, most engaging poster and commenter on Lemmy. Everyone loves my posts and comments, shares them, quotes them, and responds to them endlessly. (Maybe in this scenario everyone has brain damage for some reason, and this allowed me to become the top Lemmy user.)
If I’m in that position, what’s stopping me from just putting a little blurb at the bottom of each comment saying, “this post is brought to you by Carls Jr.” or whoever wants to sponsor my comments. If people for some reason loved my posts and comments enough, I could find sponsors and just put those sponsorships right in whatever comment or post I make. Lemmy doesn’t need to be involved. They don’t need to go out of their way to recommend my posts either. If they’re good enough, then they can be spread naturally by people sharing and engaging with them.
It makes sense for platforms to provider revenue to creators, but only if the platform has substantial ad revenue. YouTube pays its creators, but it also brings in billions of ad revenue. I don’t think most Lemmy servers even have ads.
DandomRude@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Because the advertising business is highly centralized. Getting sponsorships is not as easy as you think.
An example: YouTube pays content producers per click, so to speak, a ridiculously small amount, but in total, with billions of clicks, a crazy amount. The money to finance this comes largely from advertising revenue (also Google’s main business model). They are the Gatekeepers so to speak.
But the content producers can’t live off this because Google keeps most of it for itself. They do give people the opportunity to find sponsors themselves tho - and that’s how people actually make the most money. But you have to find them for yourself or through intermediaries (that’s an industry in itself). This is only realistic if you have sufficient reach (subscribers in the example). And that, in turn, is only possible if you have already invested hundreds of hours in the production of content (you can’t make a living if you don’t get paid for that).
So I think it would be best if the platforms themselves were powerful enough in terms of reach to be able to negotiate well with advertisers. But not as powerful as Google, for example, who can afford to pay content producers a pittance because - unlike small platforms - they are not dependent on them.
sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
The unix surrealism Lemmite is awesome. They deserve my donations. Saying that people shouldn’t be able to use the platform to express themselves rejects a whole bunch of people.
pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 2 days ago
I’d rather have one unix surrealism than a thousand influencers with lots of followers. These days, I want to be among people who interact as equals, who share ideas, who cooperate in a genuine way. If we try a shortcut to more users through money, what is the point?
sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I want to be among people who interact as equals, who share ideas, who cooperate in a genuine way.
I think online journalism might be a good example of influencers and users interacting as equals. Users provide extra information, ask questions, reify, and help highlight where the journalist can focus. The journalist does the leg work to produce novel news.
If we try a shortcut to more users through money, what is the point?
To build an interesting, self sustaining network, where people can express themselves fully, and understand each other.
The features I’m suggesting would benefit everyone: a decent view of trending topics/posts/tags; mod-controlled tags; stuff like that. Most users would find them helpful, but a few could use it to build a livelihood that others value.
pmk@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
If the money is freely given as a donation, then I’m with you. If lack of money is what is stopping someone from making things that others are willing to pay to see more of, then sure. But if the only way to do it is to have ads or selling our data etc, then I don’t want that.
sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
But if the only way to do it is to have ads or selling our data etc, then I don’t want that.
Nobody wants that. It’s a bunch of lil features:
-
following users in Lemmy,
-
allow mods flair users in a community (so subscribers/patrons can show off),
-
Make it easier to see popular posts on Lemmy and Mastodon,
Stuff like that.
-
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
The journalist does the leg work to produce novel news.
Just to add that in addition to novelty, journalists provide valuable services, like
- holding up a mirror to the present culture
- documenting and disseminating happenings
- packaging up events into narratives
Not to say that you weren’t including these in “novel news,” but just to make it explicit.
sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Absolutely - I wanted to list interactions between regular users and someone who makes money with a platform.
After a bunch of Twitter users (including journalists) bounced off Mastodon when Elon bought it, the fediverse needs to understand why, and think about what it means to be a viable platform.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
Agreed. The only thing I actually miss is geographically local contacts. But as far as just culture and discourse goes - I’m good.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
I feel like this is comparing the mall to the park.
They both attract people, but not always the same people, or for the same reasons. And that’s OK.
I get what you’re saying though, because I’ve felt this way when trying to come up with reasons for people (sole proprietors) to get with the fedi, but maybe this place is just not for influencers - not like the corp platforms, anyway. I think the fediverse will attract more and more people with its network effects, but probably never all of the people all of the time.
My modest hope is that the fedi bleeds the big platforms just enough to put them in their place and keep from enshittifying to infinity.
sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
maybe this place is just not for influencers - not like the corp platforms, anyway
The things people need to build a livelihood on a platform are quality of life features. In a lot of cases, I think it’s small stuff: being able to reward patrons with a tag on a specific community; automatically highlighting popular posts; making it easy to find a user’s monetization page; etc.
I think the fediverse will attract more and more people with its network effects, but probably never all of the people all of the time.
At the moment, Lemmy is an ad-free version of Reddit missing some community and notification features. There are good political reasons to be here, but that hasn’t driven a sustained increase in users.
So we won’t get critical mass for network effects by being a better Reddit.
One to make the platform self-sustaining (or grow) is to give creators a reason to use the platform, which will give people a reason to come and stay.
grrgyle@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
It’s not just ad-free, it’s actively anti-corporate, anti-advertising, even anti-monetization. I would go so far as to say even anti-content in some ways. That’s a cultural disconnect that goes beyond tooling.
sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’s not just ad-free, it’s actively anti-corporate, anti-advertising, even anti-monetization.
There are upvoted positive posts and comments about
-
the Switch 2 announcement (but not Nintendo’s legal policy),
-
the Framework advertising event last week,
-
Valve/Steam/SteamOS/Steamdeck/Gabe Newell in general,
-
Costco in general,
-
EVs in general (excluding Tesla and Cybertrucks 😂),
-
podcasts that solicit funding and carry advertising,
-
anime and anime adjacent products,
-
Lenovo’s laptops,
-
individuals selling stuff on Redbubble/Etsy/OnlyFans,
-
subscription razor blade delivery (not from Amazon),
-
and “voting with your wallet”.
It’d be cool if the platform made it easier for orgs to build and interact with a following here. Niches of users really like talking about them. That doesn’t mean ads, it means features that would benefit regular users as well.
-
Valmond@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I hate the idea that everything should be monetised, that only gives us loong videos with laughing heads and so on “to keep you engaged”.
We’re here without all that crap and well the fediverse is definitely less active but it’s content made by people because they like it, they believe in it. Not to shake the money tree.
4am@lemm.ee 2 days ago
It’s an interesting take though because a lot of good content requires funding too, as well as hosting etc.
So how can we solve that in a reasonable way that doesn’t lead to all the bullshit?
Valmond@lemmy.world 2 days ago
My take is that hosting is no longer expensive, I have a 30€/month fiber link with 700Mb/s up and could theoretically host my videos for hundreds or even thousands of interested people. At 40€ I can have a 10Gb/s up if needed. That’s a lot of videos served daily.
Now, I also think that the monymaker needing to serve millions of people can go and do that elsewhere.
So what’s missing is a sort of search engine so that when I want to check out fly fishing or knitting I can check out the exquisite videos from the respective community.
Something along those lines.
If people are interested I’ll host their videos, and it shouldn’t be that hard to make them searchable, but for sure, I can’t do it all by myself. What do you think?
sbv@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
That’s the issue. If we’re gonna get evil tech bros out of our human interactions, we need to build a platform that doesn’t reject people who like to eat.
Journalists need to get access to sources, and want to see when events are happening.
Documentary creators want a way to create interesting and useful videos that will earn them a living.
Streamers want a platform that can serve a bunch of users with near-realtime (okay, just fast) interactions.
That’s what OP’s link is missing: being able to use a platform to do your preferred job is one of the things that makes a platform compelling. Until we have that, we’re rejecting a big part of our audience.
brbposting@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
We wanna grow too and hopefully be a place with more authentic conversations (better anti-bot defenses) - hyperbolic to say “future’s at stake”?
I think truly delightfully UX would be very yuge. I should learn and contribute :)