cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/27733087
Social networking startup and X competitor Bluesky is working on subscriptions. The company first announced plans to develop a new revenue stream based on the subscription model when detailing its $15 million Series A back in October. Now, mockups teasing the upcoming Bluesky subscription, along with a list of possible features, have been published to Bluesky’s GitHub.
I get so many bots following me and wanting to hook up. I’m an ugly redhead, you’re not fooling me.
While a lot of us hate ads and subscriptions, I have the unpopular opinion that they are generally still viable considering the state of how we use the internet today.
The thing is, I think that if there are ads, there should be the ability to pay to remove them, and if there is a subscription, there should be an ad-based tier as an alternative.
Let your users choose, respect their preference for funding model, and allow them to choose if they want to support a given monetization policy.
Of course, seeing as how they raised $15m from VCs, I doubt this will be nothing but what will inevitably devolve into a pay-for-reach scheme similar to Twitter Blue (or, sorry “X Premium”) that just leads to those with wealth getting more engagement, and a louder voice.
Ads and monetization have ruined the internet compared to what it was. Early Internet was completely without ads, and things were run by people who were actually interested in the content presented, not in profits.
I have donated a couple of times to Lemmy.world, because servers and work is needed for it to work. But I refuse to accept any ads anywhere. Ads do NOT improve content IMO, it merely concentrates content with commercial sites.Ads and monetization have ruined the internet compared to what it was. Early Internet was completely without ads, and things were run by people who were actually interested in the content presented, not in profits.
How early are we talking here? If you mean pre-Web, in the Usenet era it was standard practice to pay a subscription to join a Usenet server. If you mean the early Web, ads were already everywhere by the mid-90s.
The early internet also couldn’t provide most of the larger sites and platforms we now use. As it grew, it had to monetize in order to actually operate. If you want something outside the scope of a passion project, you need funding outside the scope of a passion project. The early internet did so well with people who actually cared because they didn’t have to operate platforms that couldn’t just care. They were operating things like personal sites and chatrooms, not social networks, document editors, or newsrooms.
Federated servers with donation-based models can function as of now, but you’d have a hard time covering hosting costs if every normal social media user began using federated platforms. There’s simply too many of them.
I’m not saying ads improve content, I’m not saying they’re the best model, and if you refuse to accept ads anywhere, that’s fine, but sites simply can’t all provide services for free, and if we want sites with the same functionality we have today, they need to monetize somehow.
Donations are definitely an option (I mean, hey, look at Wikipedia) but it isn’t necessarily viable for every online venture. For a lot of platforms, monetization must be compelled in some way, whether it’s by pushing ads, or paywalling with a subscription. The best option a platform can offer if it’s not capable of just running off donations alone is to let users choose the monetization they prefer to deal with.
There is no larger site the internet wouldn’t be better without.
Google, Meta, Twitter, Youtube are all part of the monetization disease.
The internet scaled on the back of subscribers, not big monetization, which frankly suck performance with tracking and ads rather than adding to it.
We are on Lemmy, and lemmy would obviously work even better without competition from big monetized platforms.
Communities doing passion projects serve the project. Without youtube we could have alternatives that worked better, because Youtube wouldn’t be there to attract all the attention.Back in the day we had indexing sites, fora, and also search before google. All things that helped finding interesting sites. The interesting sites of passion projects have become rare. And almost the entire internet is now driven for profit instead of interest and passion. I tell you, I can really see the difference, there is 100 times more irrelevant noise for the same amount of content.
There is no larger site the internet wouldn’t be better without.
You’re targeting the larger sites as they exist, not the concepts and underlying functionality.
If you want social media, no matter if it’s Lemmy or Reddit, it costs a hell of a lot of money to host that. If you wanted social media, even a federated model like Lemmy or Mastodon to actually scale to all the people that are otherwise using other sites like Meta’s, you have to fund it somehow, and those funding models change at scale.
I’m not saying needing money like this is good, but it’s simply objectively difficult to fund any platform, for any purpose, when handling so many users. The only reason Lemmy and other federated platforms are funded so well right now is because they can be done at a hobbyist level, for a hobbyist cost, in most cases.
Once you scale up to the whole world, your funding model simply has to change. Donations can work, but they’re much more difficult to get working than either ads or subscriptions in terms of securing long-term funding at scale.
If you want social media, no matter if it’s Lemmy or Reddit, it costs a hell of a lot of money to host that.
Seems to be doing fine, if scaled up cost and contributions would even out. IMO you actually proved my point.
The scale of the internet is mainly based on ISP’s and those are paid by users. Sites can be distributed, the technology to do that has existed since the mid 90’s.
These distribution models work fine, and do not have to deal with the added tasks of ads and trackers commercial sites use.
You could pretty easily build a youtube like site around it.It’s possible, but funding changes at scale.
For example, more people using federated protocols like Mastodon or Lemmy are going to be early adopters that care more about underlying technology and have stronger ideological views about online platforms, compared to, say, your average Facebook mom.
So of course, they’re going to be more likely to donate. Once you scale outside of those groups into groups of people who don’t care as much, and are less invested in the technology, you get less donations.
Sites can work on donation models (again, see Wikipedia) but it’s much more difficult to have such a system stay afloat than one where monetization is much more heavily required, and thus generates more revenue.
It’s not ideal, but it’s also difficult to have such a system work otherwise in many cases.
and do not have to deal with the added tasks of ads and trackers commercial sites use.
They use these things because it makes them more money than it costs. If ads and trackers costed more to implement than not having them, then they wouldn’t use them in the first place.
You could pretty easily build a youtube like site around it.
PeerTube exists if you’re interested, by the way.
Sites can be distributed, the technology to do that has existed since the mid 90’s.
Certain aspects of sites can be distributed, but others can’t as easily be. For instance, you could have a P2P federated network where every user of, say, Mastodon, helps host and redistribute content from posts, but that’s not how these systems are built right now, and they’d have difficulties with things like maintaining accurate like counts.
It would be ideal if they could be built in a way that removes the need for a central platform in the first place, and can run on general-purpose devices, and thus doesn’t carry costs that require monetization, but because they aren’t built like that, they will eventually need to monetize as they scale up. Unless they change the entire underlying technological model of these federated platforms, they will inevitably need to monetize if they gain enough users outside the (relatively speaking) small bubble of dedicated users that can easily fund a platform through hobby money and donations.
So of course, they’re going to be more likely to donate. Once you scale outside of those groups into groups of people who don’t care as much, and are less invested in the technology, you get less donations.
This is true with how things are now, but an ad free internet would look very different, and users would behave differently and have different expectations.
Note that I’m not arguing for a total non commercial Internet, things like subscriptions and Steam are fine, it’s things like Google Meta Twitter and the likes, where the users are actually the product, and the customers are the advertisers.PeerTube exists if you’re interested, by the way.
Yes I know, but youtube makes it irrelevant, because everybody post there.
The problem is that today ads are against privacy so the ad-tier are really invasive in term of tracking and because their services tracks you when using ad-tier they will when using noad-tier. For example if you pay YouTube premium you’ll not have ads in YouTube but your consumption habits will serve google ads services to serve you ads on all almost all sites of the world
True, but that’s a matter of technical implementation that I believe should be changed along with any proposed change to monetization models like I’d previously mentioned.
For instance, the site should delay ad loading until you pick “yes, I want to see ads,” or if you pick “I have a subscription” and sign in, it shouldn’t load them at all.
This isn’t impossible to do, it’s just something they haven’t made as an easy implementation yet, since things like Google’s ad services auto-load when a page is loaded, since no site really has a mechanism to manually enable or disable the core requests to Google based on user input.
You’re right, I fought that people are exasperated of seeing ads but when they are not present BUT their system is tracking you the same way, so people are okay with it as long as nothing pop on their screen. Loading trackers in the background or not.
The problem with ads is advertisers want to be able to target specific groups of people, which means the platform needs to violate your privacy to get that information.
It’s not violating your privacy when you agree to let them access all your data in the EULA. That’s why they exist.
Edit: I’m not saying it’s a good thing, that’s just how it works.
Ads could just occur in the background & relevant to What you want to see & the content
Would love to hear about Mastodon in the news (or by anyone with a following) for once instead of Bluesky
Mastodon needs to be newsworthy first. Otherwise the news we’d constantly hear is “Mastodon exists. Nobody cares”.
Then it’ll have to become more popular and user friendly.
$8/72 per month/year seems too high for most people.
Had Twitter added a paid tier early on as it scaled up - when it was still largely the only short form blogging platform - we could potentially have avoided…so much shit we now live in. Twitter was never profitable, so it just kept adding ads until that wasn’t sustainable. And then dipshit bought it and really turned it into the nazi place.
Twitter always had problems, but I think we can generally agree it wasn’t a pretty good service for lots of things. Breaking news, sports, even science, etc. It had actual (not amazing, but existing) moderation. There’s maybe a world out there where a Twitter that isn’t owned by some idiot doesn’t help influence an election that we now have to deal with for decades to come.
That’s all wishful thinking, of course, and Twitter is not THE REASON the U.S. is trash. But there was a path where Twitter didn’t turn into just Truth Social 2.0.
Adding a paid tier to Bluesky might sound like “enshitification,” but if it simply keeps the company afloat then there’s potentially less chance of it becoming Twitter 2.0, so to speak. Otherwise, there’s probably a straight path to ads then creditors calling in debts then selling then elon just buys it, too.
Paying for a product does not prevent enshitification.
Gee whiz wow who could have possibly seen this coming.
But people have been assuring me that it is a federated protocol, so I guess I’ll just join another instance. I’m sure there is a list somewhere… It’s coming… Any day now…
Just playing devil’s advocate here, but they have to make money somehow, right? It’s either this or advertisements. And I fucking hate advertisements. I say the only way they could truly drop the ball is if they opt for both subscriptions and advertisements. The only other option is donations. And I honestly can’t see that as a viable strategy for something like Bluesky.
Donation model would be completely viable if they actually allowed other people to run federated servers.
But it’s been a VC Trojan horse from the start.
Isn’t a subscription on a free platform just donating with extra steps? Either way it’s optional but with one of the options you get perks. I’m not discounting the obviously shady things they are doing, I’m just pointing out that they’re basically the same thing from the perspective of the consumer but you get bonus shit.
The “extra steps” are exactly what concerns me.
Look, I know that a lot of people find valuable community and information from platforms like Bluesky, Threads, etc. They are worlds better than the Nazi Bar that used to be Twitter. But the repeated lie that they are a part of the fediverse or that they benefit the fediverse or an open internet is cynical and misleading.
We live in a world where Mastodon exists, and is actually pretty good even though there is a learning curve to it. If we are volunteering efforts to promote a microblogging platform, I personally don’t think that it should be one backed by billionaires and built for profit. They have a budget for that. the Fediverse only has us. We are the marketing department.
I think it would be really interesting to see a Peertube instance (for example) create a paid tier with better quality uploads and analytics. Those cost money to maintain. The difference is that it would exist in a federated ecosystem where everyone would be able to benefit from that content.
- Bluesky+ profile badge
- Custom app icons
- Profile customizations
- Higher video upload limits
- High quality video resolution
- Inline post translations (coming soon)
- Post analytics (coming soon)
- Bookmark folders (coming soon)
These seem fair ideas? They’re not paywalling critical functionality and you can’t run a massive social network for free. It’s not the same attitude as the wider Fediverse, and I understand why that rubs people the wrong way, but it’s hardly outrageous.
It’s refreshing to see them not including “Ad-free” as a feature
This isn’t the last stop on the enshitification express.
They’re really speedrunning the enshittification, aren’t they?
Well… my wallet is certainly hurting after the latest $0 price increase on my $0 Mastodon subscription.
(kidding, in fact, I actually donate monthly to my instance.)
Quite. Servers aren’t free and someone needs to pay the bills and increasingly distribute the moderation load. I’m happy with my Mastodon and following a few federated accounts on threads and bsky. But I’m not going to someone they are a bad person for choosing something that is familiar yet a little different while escaping x/itter.
I think the Xitter or even Discord model is poisonous for a community. It essentially creates a caste system where equal exchange can’t happen. In part because it attracts a very special kind of user base that creates a special kind of culture.
It essentially creates a caste system where equal exchange can’t happen.
If you experience Nitro members being seen as more important than others, you’re in the wrong Discord communities.
I’ve never seen someone being glorified because they are a Nitro user, and although I’ve seen some member pretending to be superior because they have Nitro, they were quickly to be ridiculed and put back in their place for trying to gloat about paying for it.
Source: been on Discord for over 9 years.
You’re thinking about it too literally. It really comes down to emotes, stickers and the like. That’s the Discord currency and before you say you can just post pictures, that’s not the same and not treated alike. It’s not about being ridiculed. It’s about being excluded from the conversation. You simply won’t be acknowledged the same way if you can’t communicate in the same style. It’s not even about one party being better. It’s more of a small rift between the two. The divide is subtle. Perhaps too subtle for most to care but it’s there.
You and I are on very different Discord communities.
Perhaps too subtle for most to care but it’s there
I’d rather say it’s only something to care about when you are in high school or peaked in high school.
Nobody cares in community servers who’s got animoji and who can send a sticker from another server.
…and we’re back to where we started.
Shove your subscriptions up your gravy ring. Mastodon >>>>
I thought the Big Thing with BS was being open and federate-able?
(Yes, sarcasm)
