• Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    The expense of running busy servers is too much to expect of anyone. I haven’t even tried to figure out how the math would work but I wonder if the ultimate solution could be more of a BitTorrent architecture where the “server” is a hive of users’ computers all sharing the load? I’m a software developer but have never worked on anything in that area, but since BitTorrent works it certainly seems feasible. Comments?

    • TeddE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Personally I think self-hosting (Docker containers and stuff) would be a good solution, but for the Fediverse that would mean making a ‘family size’ edition of the server software.

      I imagine if it became a common hobby and every geek interested supported ~4-25 friends, it might work.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think one of the biggest obstacles in donations is lack of transparency of what’s going on with the donated money.

    Nowadays I tend to only donate to projects that have full transparency on what the money is being used for.

    I don’t know if it’s the case as the presented case is not an instance I use. But on general before donating any money is the first thing I look up, and if it’s not clear I just hold my money.

    But it is known that donations usually cannot sustain projects, specially “user donations”. For a project to be able to have a steady and sizeable influx of money there need to be whale donators or corporations that donate to it. Relying on user donations will always mean a very little amount of money, and I don’t think that’s going to change as most people don’t have that much disposable income anyway.

    I think p2p and true decentralization is the way to go. Don’t get me wrong, fediverse is great, but is not as much decentralized as “less centralized”, truly decentralized model should be p2p. I’ve said several times that the ess centralized" model have a critical failure point and that is that instances are under a lot of pressure, economic, legal and administrative. And we are burning people out and spending all their money, because it’s a model that relies in a few number of people taking that big burden.

    I think a model that the burden is smaller and mor spread among the user base will be more resilient, at least on this aspect.

    Also I take the change to put up a critique on domain costs, it’s not much, but it’s part of this topic and surely they should be cheaper, as domain cost is 90% speculation and very little labor cost. I don’t know if there’s any project to democratize domain names in the clearnet, but there should be one.

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Nowadays I tend to only donate to projects that have full transparency on what the money is being used for.

      If you believe he’s spending $5k/mo to run the server, even if you send him $20 and he blows it on blackjack and hookers, it means he has to spend $20 of his bj/h money on the server. So I don’t really see an issue. Does that make sense?

      • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        12 hours ago

        The transparency is needed to know if the server is actually costing $5000

        Not that the server cost only $500 and the rest go to cocaine and hookers

        I don’t need to keep track of my bill precisely, what I want is budget transparency.

    • dil@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yep, cant even see how much they got a month or anything like that as far as im aware, there are some piracy sites where the donation number stays at like 200/350 goal forever and it feels like you really never kniw if they’re just making bank and pretending to be in need lol

  • DownWithIsrael@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Why the fuck should we be paying admins to have control over our data and be able to arbitrarily ban us because they feel like it?

    No. Their reward for having users is that they’re in control. Expecting users to then pay them for that control is fucking stupid, but I don’t expect most people to realize it.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      thats because its thier site, instance they get set rules like it. just like reddit bans you force certain things. dont use the site then.

    • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      No. Their reward for having users is that they’re in control. Expecting users to then pay them for that control is fucking stupid,

      You DO realize that not everyone works to attain power over other people, right?

      but I don’t expect most people to realize it.

      The reason people don’t realize that site owners’ reward for forking over half a salary in hosting costs for some nebulous power to hold other people in their clutching fists and cackle maniacally is because that’s not the motivator here.

      I look forward to when you can see that.

      • DownWithIsrael@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Bro, why do you just trust these people when they tell you what their expenses are?

        Even if some dumbass is spending $5000/month (which sounds like a load of bullshit if you’re not a moron) to host a fucking lemmy instance, why do you trust that they need to spend that money in order to provide the instance?

        Have you noticed how most people buy things they don’t need just because they can? If not, then you need more life experience and it makes sense that you would take admin’s word at face value when they try to sucker you out of money.

        As always, when money is involved scumbags and useful idiots come out in droves to justify each other’s existence.

  • DownWithIsrael@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    Bro, what fucking project ever solves “the money problem?”

    As soon as they get more, they spend more and then it’s back to square one.

  • suswrkr@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    start a nonprofit that hosts services, gather donations for equipment and other stuff.

    what is so difficult here?

    • suswrkr@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      omg and do NOT do fireside chats like you are a bunch of dickhead executives. no wonder you need to beg for donations.

  • SorteKanin@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Feddit.dk is not a huge Lemmy instance but I’ve managed to not have to pay anything so far due to generous user donations. It works quite well I think. I think Mastodon is just not quite as effective in gathering people like this to donate, that’s my guess at least.

  • nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Misskey is probably the only fediverse software that actually allows admin instance to put ads.

    Its flagship instance, misskey.io (which also the second/third (?) biggest instances on fediverse), use freemium scheme for running the server. They have to do this as they have 600K users, with 20K visits per day. Their paid tier upgrades are mostly adding more stuff, such as drive capacity from 5GB to 30-100GB, adding non-essentials more decoration (similar to Discord stuff), or more webhook. They runs community ads, from indie games, vtuber promotion, comic release, or local art event. They also have one corporate backer for its instance, Skeb.jp, which an art commissioning platform.

    Not saying that all instance should do this, but it could be a great learning.

  • dangling_cat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Freemium is the way to go. All the essential features are free; you can pay for extra stuff like special emojis, coins(like Reddit silver/gold), or customizable profiles. It could be either a subscription or à la carte.

    Simply giving something in return would incentivize people to donate more.

  • jerry@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Hi all. It’s Jerry from the interview talking about infosec.exchange. I think it’s important to understand some apparently missing context in the discussions below. I was talking about a hypothetical future where we saw tens/hundreds of millions of active accounts on the fediverse. I don’t believe the current funding model can support that, and I also don’t think the “spin up your own host” model will work for the masses, either.

    I host close to two dozen different fediverse services, from lemmy to mastodon to mbin to peertube and lots more, and all that takes some significant hardware to run at larger scales. My objective has been to provide a fast and reliable fediverse experience, and so I’ve focused more on that than on making my servers scream, and so I’ve landed on hosting the fleet on a series of Hetzner Dell servers with 10GB interfaces, and that is not cheap.

  • ragingHungryPanda@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Just to keep the instance up and running he needs to spend up to $5000 a month, pretty much out of his pocket.

    Wtf!?

    • aasatru@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Seems to be some misunderstanding somewhere - Jerry states elsewhere that the costs are covered by donations.

      The Mastodon instance I’m on has around 200 people (not all of them active), and received around €800 in donations last year,. Total costs were less than €300.

      I think the problem of scaling kicks in when we go after demographics that are less charitable on average.

    • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      I just watched the section of the interview where Jerry (admin of fedia.io and infosec.exchange), and he said that

      There are a lot of people who aren’t that lucky. Even charging a 1$ fee is too much. That is their lifeline, it’s their way to connect to friends, and search for jobs. To me, I don’t think it’s appropriate to gatekeep it with a monthly fee.

      https://video.firesidefedi.live/w/1yNa4rLzzLXnuRoX7Rny3y?start=38m45s

      For the host question, it’s at 34:11

        • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          No questions from my side, just a big thank you to mention Mbin, Lemmy, the Fediverse in that interview. It’s probably the first time for me where I watch a video talking about all of this, which is curious with how part of my daily life it is.

          I still haven’t watched everything, but one of your quotes sounded resonated with me “We’re only here for a short time. Why should we be a-holes to each other, and not just try to enjoy ourselves?”

          Anyway, thank you for everything, take care!

  • nocturne@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    And if he will ask people to pay to use it, they will, rightfully so, switch to a different instance.

    I joined my instance’s patreon and donate $1 / month. I know it is not a lot, but so far the admin says he is doing fine on cash flow, should that change I will up my donation if able.

    • ikt@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      He missed a bit:

      they will, rightfully so, switch to a different instance … or go somewhere else entirely

  • hisao@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    If Blender had a patreon or coffee or kofi, I would happily subscribe to something like $3/month. I know artists that have tens of thousands of paid subscribers and their minimal plan is $3. Blender could achieve hundreds of thousands of paid subscribers eventually imo. To make things interesting, they could release prebuilt binaries of some subprojects like NPR fork, only to subscribers, also they could do partnership and paid plugin giveaways every month to subscribers. It just needs a bit of dedicated SMM work. One-time donations just don’t hit the same. I do those maybe once a year or two, and don’t do another one until I get the feeling “it’s been a while”.

  • celeste@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    i know most of ao3’s budget goes to server costs. they get by with volunteer labor and donations, but they mostly host text. i genuinely have no idea what a sustainable model would look like for the fediverse, that doesn’t just treat volunteers like disposable rags we toss when they get inevitable burnout.

  • Fizz@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    The thing is that ads pay almost nothing. I’d be very happy to pay 4x what an ad would pay. But the problem is I can’t sent 0.12 to someone when I watch their video because 50% of that is gobbled up by transaction fees. So the only option is to bulk donate which either requires pooling money in a 3rd party or the user donating a bulk amount ($10). Users really dont like giving away $10 when it feels like they get nothing in return. Its all mental but its a very real problem. We will pay for $10 of dogshit food but not $10 for a software product we’ve used for 100s of hours.

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    The only real option is to charge people.
    Hosting isn’t free. It costs money to host a website. That money needs to come from somewhere. If it doesn’t come from advertisers, it must come from users.

    There could be a verity options for that. But I like the simple annual subscription. Each and every user pays. Spread out the cost as much as possible. It’s only fair.

    • Blaze (he/him) @lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I just watched the section of the interview where Jerry (admin of fedia.io and infosec.exchange), and he said that

      There are a lot of people who aren’t that lucky. Even charging a 1$ fee is too much. That is their lifeline, it’s their way to connect to friends, and search for jobs. To me, I don’t think it’s appropriate to gatekeep it with a monthly fee.

      https://video.firesidefedi.live/w/1yNa4rLzzLXnuRoX7Rny3y?start=38m45s

    • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Most people are only willing to pay with non-monetary resources (PII, ad data, etc.). You can’t approach this with charging money in mind, because people will just go back to the places where they aren’t expected to pay. Start charging for Mastodon? The majority will go to Bluesky, Twitter, and Threads. Lemmy would just feed back to Reddit. Either that or they’ll drop off social media altogether.

      We’ve already got proof of this: PeerTube. Most PeerTube instances either charge a fee to upload (call it a ‘donation’ if you prefer, but if you’re gating an action behind money, that’s a fee), or simply don’t allow any users not connected to the admin to upload. YouTube, Twitch, Dailymotion, and a few other sites are free. The sites where it’s free to perform the core activity will keep winning, especially as we see rising inflation and increasing costs.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        If you charge, you also have to offer a better experience than the free options. There’s no reason instances can’t use ads for people unwilling or unable to pay. For me I’ll gladly pay for an ad-free experience.

        • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          The reason they can’t show ads is actually pretty simple: if I’m going to have ads in my feed, I’m just going to go back to Reddit for the same experience. Plus, when you consider dbzer0 et al, you’re going to come to the conclusion that ads will either be a waste because everyone is using a strong adblock on Firefox or a browser that doesn’t care about Google manifest standards, or the people who see them will be incredibly pissed, leave the instance, and either return to Reddit (or an alternative) or move instances and make a lot of noise toward defed’ing from the ad-ridden instance.

          For me, I would rather just run an adblock and an anti-adblock-blocker on a different service than go through the frustration of ads on a non-corp platform.

          • Steve@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            It sounds like you’re thinking there is no way to compete with Reddit. If you charge, people will use Reddit. If you have ads, people will use Reddit. People are only here because there aren’t ads and it’s free?

            • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 day ago

              That’s basically correct, yes. I don’t see the fediverse platform(s) as being “special” compared to others. Sure, there’s political and social momentum that keeps people here, especially due to anticorporate causes. People are here because they got ticked about the Reddit API changes, the ads, and the monetization (Reddit Gold, etc).

              If any of those things change, people will see that they’re not getting the value they were looking for, and will go back.

        • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          No, I stopped looking at instance or software a while ago. The threadiverse has seemingly matured enough that the average user doesn’t have to care anymore.

          • rglullis@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 days ago

            It’s not about the software. I am just pointing out that Communick’s instances are only available for paying customers, so his argument (everyone should pay a little bit) is at the very least backed by his own actions.

            Regarding Peertube: I see the problem of Peertube on the other end of what you are saying. People are not using that much because even those that have a presence on PeerTube still depend on YouTube to make money. If PeerTube had a way to help with monetization, then more creators would be interested in publishing exclusively on PeerTube, even if they had to pay something to upload/distribute videos.

            • Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 days ago

              Fair point about his actions, and I’m glad to see whales splashing about in the pond with the rest of us. I disagree strongly about everyone paying. We ‘pay’ by adding content and being members of the community. We pay by expanding the network and being a negative to Reddit. Money shouldn’t need to change hands.

              See, I get your point on PeerTube, but I counter with the fact that we did have video online before YouTube. That wasn’t the revolution. It was the free hosting and free viewing that made YT a juggernaut. Same with streaming before ryan.tv. Before it was free, it was extremely niche. When monetary investment stopped being needed, it hit the mainstream. If the monetization of video content comes directly from viewers, you will go back to dedicated hobbyists and those who are certain that videos will be funded in advance.

              • rglullis@communick.news
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 days ago

                I’m glad to see whales splashing about in the pond with the rest of us.

                What “whale”? Communick costs less than $2.50 per month. It is less than the average donation people send around.

                We ‘pay’ by adding content and being members of the community

                No one can use your content to pay their bills.

                We pay by expanding the network and being a negative to Reddit

                The network is not expanding. It is stuck in this 1M-2M monthly active users (if you count all of the Fediverse) and Lemmy/kbin/piefed is hovering around 50-55k/MAU for two years already.

                Meanwhile, Reddit’s revenue has grown 62% in 2024 (from $800M in 2023 to to $1.3B last year). Do you really think they care about losing a few thousand users who are all talk but no bite?

                It was the free hosting and free viewing that made YT a juggernaut.

                There were other platforms offering free video and free hosting as well. There were even p2p alternatives. Remember Joost? It’s not that people didn’t have a choice then and YouTube was better. It’s that could Google leveraged its capital to run Youtube at a loss for as long as needed until there was no competition left.

    • Sir Arthur V Quackington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Provided there is an “upper limit” on what scale we are talking, Ive often wondered, couldn’t private users also host a sharded copy of a server instance to offset load and bandwidth? Like Folding@Home, but for site support.

      I realize this isn’t exactly feasible today for most infra, but if we’re trying to “solve” the problem, imagine if you were able to voluntarily, give up like 100gb HDD space and have your PC host 2-3% of an instance’s server load for a month or something. Or maybe just be a CDN node for the media and bandwidth heavy parts to ease server load, while the server code is on different machines.

      This kind of distributed “load balancing” on private hardware may be a complete pipe dream today, but it think if might be the way federated services need to head. I can tell you if we could get it to be as simple as volunteers spinning up a docker, and dropping the generated wireguard key and their IP in a “federate” form to give the mini-node over to an instance, it would be a lot easier to support sites in this way.

      Speaking for myself, I have enough bandwidth and space I could lend some compute and offset a small amount of traffic. But the full load of a popular instance would be more than my simple home setup is equipped for. If contributing hosting was as easy as contributing compute, it could have a chance to catch on.

      • Steve@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s not really how it works. If it was made to work that way, it would still be a relatively small group donating their own compute resources to subsidize everyone else. Which is what we already have, and isn’t very scalable.

        • Sir Arthur V Quackington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I responded above, but my point kind of was that it doesn’t work that way, but as we rethinking content delivery we should also rethinking hosting distribution. What I was saying is not a “well gee we should just do this…” type of suggestion, but more a extremely high level idea for server orchestration from a public private swarm that may or may not ever be feasible, but definitely doesn’t really exist today.

          Imagine if it were somewhat akin to BitTorrent, only the user could voluntarily give remote control to the instance for orchestration management. The orchestration server toggles the nodes contents so that, lets say, 100% of them carry the most accessed data (hot content, <100gb), and the rest is sharded so they each carry 10% of the archived data, making each node require <1tb total. And the node client is given X number of pinned CPUs that can be used for additional server compute tasks to offload various queries.

          See, I’m fully aware this doesn’t really exist on this form. But thinking of it like a Kubernetes cluster or a HA webclient it seems like it should be possible somehow to build this in a way where the client really only needs to install, and say yes to contribute. If we could cut it down to that level, then you can start serving the site like a P2P bittorrent swarm, and these power user clients can become nodes.

      • rglullis@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago
        • This is not how the fediverse works. Each server keeps a whole copy to themselves of all that they’ve accessed in the federation.
        • Cost of hardware is only a fraction of the total cost. Even if we solved the issue of running the Fediverse at scale with negligible costs, we still are not accounting for all the labor of volunteers, instance admins and developers.
        • Sir Arthur V Quackington@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          I realize that is not how the fediverse works. I’m not speaking about the content delivery as much as the sever orchestration.

          That’s why I’m saying if somehow it could work that way, it would be one way to offset the compute and delivery burdens. But it is a very different paradigm from normal hosting. There would have to be some kind of swarmanagement layer that the main instance nodes controlled.

          My point was only that, should such a proposal be feasible one day, if you lower the barriers you could have more resources.

          I myself have no interest in hosting a full blown private instance of Lemmy or mastodon, but I would happily contribute 1tb of storage and a ton of idle compute to serving the content for my instance if I could. That’s where this thinking stemmed from. Many users like me could donate their “free” idle power and space. But currently it is not feasible.