This is literally just the r/nyt subreddit about The New York Times.
Given he apparently takes inspiration from Elon Musk, it’s only a matter of time until u/spez starts adding post view limits unless you pay extra.
This is literally just the r/nyt subreddit about The New York Times.
Given he apparently takes inspiration from Elon Musk, it’s only a matter of time until u/spez starts adding post view limits unless you pay extra.
Mark Zuckerberg was planning on introducing some subscription service like Twitter checkmarks to Meta, but at least he responded to questions about it in his comments section. Iirc the program might even have been delayed due to its apathy from users, but I haven’t heard much about its plans lately. At least he understood how stupid he sounded once he spoke with consumers.
I don’t even think a subscription model is a bad idea. Right now you pay with your data - ie you are the product. Therefore the website you use (Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc) has the primary incentive to please their customers - the advertisers.
When you have a subscription model, the user becomes the customer. Any changes would, presumably, be made to improve the user experience. Right now that isn’t really the case. As that now famous enshittification article from January elaborated on - websites are nice to the users until they feel like they have the users captive.
The moment that happens, they pivot to extracting as much as possible out of the user.
Would this happen at the same rate or at all in a subscription format?
Having said all that, I would only ever consider subscribing to something on one condition
A subscription model just means you’ll pay them to aggressively collect and sell your data. There might be a different service somewhere that will do one or the other, but there’s no way reddit is gonna give up an established revenue stream
Sure, I don’t think I would trust reddit or any other established company to change. But for an example, look at Kagi. You pay a monthly subscription but you don’t get served ads and your data isn’t sold.
I think the Patreon model would work best for a social media network. There are a few patreons that make on the order of 10s of thousands of dollars per month. That seems like that would be enough to pay for hosting and wages for a few coders and admins*. Not everyone would have to pay so it could be a free public service for everyone else. The people who fund a social network need to be funding it because they see there is a societal need for such a network not because they expect a return on their investment; or because paying gives them some special privilege within that social network.
*Or even better several separate patreons for the coders and admins in a federated network.
You’ll still pay with your data and you’ll still be the product when you pay. The statement of if you don’t pay you are the product is outdated for the present day when it comes for for profit companies. You can drop thousands and you’ll still be getting data collected on you.
https://www.vox.com/technology/2023/4/6/23673339/tesla-camera-privacy
Stuff like YouTube premium don’t opt you out of getting data collected on you either. Data harvesting is a core foundation of these services that isn’t going to go away no matter how much you pay. You aren’t paying to not be the product but for additional features.
Who are these people that will fund a social network, with no expectations of a return on that investment, so that people can fill it up with memes and porn for free?
People that want there to be a platform they can enjoy using. There doesn’t have to be a monetary gain for your life to be enriched by an investment you make. I mean, people make donations to wikipedia, how is that any different?
I’ve given money to both Wikipedia & Lichess on multiple occasions.
Gotta support these types of things. They are the shining gems of what is possible online.
Wikipedia seems to be a non profit and doesn’t seem to be in the business of harvesting user data seems to be a difference, or constantly chasing after unlimited growth that leads to constant growing expenses due to expectations of shareholders that leads to focus on sustainability not being a priority.
Exactly, there is no reason a social media company has to be a for-profit business.