I wish government organisations would host their own Mastodon servers. Get off Twitter.
Mastodon has a new plan to make money: Hosting and support services for the open social web
Submitted 12 hours ago by misk@sopuli.xyz to fediverse@lemmy.world
Comments
Flamekebab@piefed.social 11 hours ago
nyankas@lemmy.ml 8 hours ago
Germany actually does that! Quite a few government bodies are already active at social.bund.de. Maybe there‘s hope that other countries will follow.
Ulrich@feddit.org 7 hours ago
Trump actually does host his own Mastodon server. It’s called “Truth”. Unfortunately it doesn’t federate 🤣
But yeah, pretty rough to see Obama and Biden still posting to Xitter.
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 hours ago
Fortunately it doesn’t federate
Ftfy.
henfredemars@infosec.pub 10 hours ago
In some countries, corporations and government are basically the same entity. Free countries distinguish between them in a meaningful sense.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 9 hours ago
Even then, would rather my government contract out Mastodon hosting to a company based here in the UK than to use the American Hosted and moderated Elon tool.
andypiper@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Absolutely. In fact I wrote exactly that last year.
golli@sopuli.xyz 8 hours ago
Honestly, imo they wouldn’t even need to get off Twitter and other platforms completely. Just make their own mastodon instance (or something similar that they control themselves) the primary source of truth and place of interaction. They could still link and reference it on other platforms to increase visibility, but make sure that all primary information is in a freely accessible place and not beholden to unreliable entities.
julian@activitypub.space 9 hours ago
It's a good approach, it's exactly how NodeBB operates as well.
We have a FOSS software and we sell managed services for those who don't have the technical know-how.
Win-win.
ozoned@piefed.social 6 hours ago
Corporations only want to deal with companies, not ideas or people. I’ve been thinking about it from my experience with red hat. Support and services. I don’t want to host, but I’ll absolutely help others.
EarlGrey@discuss.tchncs.de 6 hours ago
I would love to see hosts start offering subscription based instances and do things like paying for regular auditing of their infrastructure to give us some assurance that our data is actually secure.
I’d legitimately pay for that.
biotin7@sopuli.xyz 5 hours ago
All they have to do is not censor or take down domains. Looking at you GoDaddy
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
Mastodon has already been exploring this solution ahead of today’s launch by partnering with clients like the European Commission, the state of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany, the city of Blois in France, and AltStore, a software company making an alternative app store.
Great idea!
anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 11 hours ago
I honestly would’ve preferred a referral program where you could get a pre-configured vps at your chosen vps provider (where the end user can choose from vps providers such as Hetzner, Glesys and so on), and that the referrer (mastodon, friendica, piefed, lemmy or mbin) gets a small cut out of every monthly payment.
Though I’m not sure how to make that an intriguing deal for the vps providers.Centralizing the decentralized web at one provider sounds counter productive.
andypiper@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Completely agree that this “feels like” a centralisation vector. That’s not the intent of it, and if you read the blog post we make it clear that we want many Mastodon servers, everywhere, rather than one organisation hosting them all. This is to do two things - 1) get us a more sustainable financial foundation that is less dependent on grant cycles and 2) enable the larger institutions (EU Commission being an existing example) to get set up on the Fediverse.
avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 8 hours ago
Even if they were to use a single cloud for the mabaged instances, this is not at all like the centralization of platform ownership. Here’s the critical difference.
If something happens to Twitter, say a methhead buys it and turns it into a propaganda machine, its users can only stop using it and/or move elsewhere. For this to have a significant effect, the whole network of people has to move. Every individual has to do non-trivial amount of labour to do so.
If something happens to the cloud provider hosting some sizeable Mastodon server, the owner of the server can migrate the instance to another cloud provider, or their own hardware, switch the DNS records and their users would only notice a brief interruptin. There’s no labour needed by the users. Only a much smaller amoubt of labour by the instance owner.
And that’s the critical difference.
kbal@fedia.io 11 hours ago
I remember when I wanted Mozilla to do that, since they had the organizational might, the money, and it fit perfectly with their mission when they created mozilla.social. On the one hand, it seems slightly less ideal to have the same organization that develops mastodon also providing hosting for it. On the other hand, they probably have a better chance of doing it well.
warmaster@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
I hope they don’t go open core.
andypiper@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Can confirm there are no plans for this to happen or be attempted. We’re getting the new European non-profit worked out (more news soon), no changes to the licensing.
rglullis@communick.news 10 hours ago
The code is AGPL. They can’t do open core.
henfredemars@infosec.pub 10 hours ago
TIL GNU Affero General Public License it a flavor that closes loopholes that were used to extend open software without actually open sourcing your contributions.
poVoq@slrpnk.net 9 hours ago
Matrix Synapse is AGPL, and it is very much open-core these days, see Synapse Pro.
This is IMHO the main risk, at some point someone might say, why not give our hosting an small advanatge over others, and it is all downhill from there.
homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Approved.
Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
I think that sounds like a really good idea, if you want to get corporate- and government hosted instances on board. What keeps most of them away from free software is that they can’t write a contract with anyone with clear boundaries and guarantees. If Mastodon offers these types of contracts, it would help the adoption rate.
rglullis@communick.news 10 hours ago
They can. There are plenty of companies offering Mastodon hosting.
Ulrich@feddit.org 7 hours ago
Paging @paige@fedihost.co
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
Mastodon isn’t different than any other software, anybody with a half-way experienced IT department could spin up an instance. This sounds like it’s more for small organizations and individuals.