Elon Musk said he will charge all X/Twitter users a fee to be on the platform. He suggested that such a change would be necessary to deal with the problem of bots on the platform.

“It’s the only way I can think of to combat vast armies of bots," said Elon. I can’t believe that this is the only solution he can think of.

Dealing with bots would be Elon Musk’s responsibility, considering he’s the only one profiting significantly from X, not us. Elon Musk steals our data and censors each of our posts, now he even expects us to pay to clean up the mess he created.

Plus, the problems with X go beyond just bots. The algorithm and programming decisions are negatively impacting user experience and manipulating people’s minds.

We want a town square where everyone is free to have & voice an opinion. I do not believe we have to pay ”a small monthly payment” for such a place, especially in a country that should value these freedoms & suppressing ideas.

  • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I effectively pay to use my IRC, XMPP and email, since I rent a VPS. But that payment earns me much more pleasant usage experience (in case of my IRC bouncer) and a lot of cotrol over my servers in case of the latter two. So while paying a subscription feels a bit bad, I think it’s worth it.

    • rglullis@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We can’t expect everyone else to self-host. The question is, what would be the most viable solution for a better (ad free, Surveillance Capitalism free) Internet that can work at scale?

      • sir_reginald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        small communities of self-hosters that offer the services to those who don’t possess the knowledge to do it themselves. These communities would self-host federated protocols (eg XMPP) so people can interact with others no matter which server they use.

        Ideally maintained through users donations. If you want to be less idealistic, maybe small co-ops which charge a reasonable monthly/annual fee and provide free services for those who can’t really afford to pay.

        • rglullis@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A bit too vague. Please:

          • Define what the number of people in the average “small community”.
          • Define “Reasonable monthly/annual fee”.
          • Define what would be the cut-off point to “can’t afford to pay”.

          The reason that I am asking you to be specific is that there is a good chance that professional providers can be more efficient than any “community-based” solution. We can have hundreds/thousands of independent professional service providers, each serving around 100-500k people, which would make a sustainable and healthy market. On the other hand, I sincerely doubt that we would be able to serve the 2 billion people on e.g Instagram by having millions of “community based” instances of Pixelfed.

        • rglullis@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago
          • The operational costs and usage patterns of wikipedia are completely different from a social media website.

          • Donations only “work” if you count all the labor done by volunteers as free. The Wikimedia Foundation might be swimming in cash, but the mods and editors don’t see a penny out of it.

          • renormalizer@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Isn’t that the same for Reddit or Lemmy? The content creators and mods don’t see a penny either. Operationally, a social network probably requires a lot more compute power and somewhat more bandwidth compared to a site that serves mostly static content. But I don’t see why small donations shouldn’t cover that. The cost per user seems moderate, otherwise few people could afford to run an instance with 1000s of users without charging them.

            • rglullis@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              (on reddit) content creators and mods don’t see a penny either.

              Yeah, but since when is this considered fair? Facebook has one million faults, but at the very least they pay their moderation and safety teams.

              The cost per user seems moderate, otherwise few people could afford to run an instance with 1000s of users without charging them.

              Is there any donation-based instance where the admins can make a living out of their labor? Even mastodon.social with more than 6 million users can only manage to have two developers on payroll, and they pay themselves a ridiculously low salary.

          • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t see that big a difference there tbh. The WMF nowadays also has a paid trust and safety team like a social media platform.

            • rglullis@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago
              • The entirety of the English Wikipedia can be stored in a single commodity hard disk. The entire database (with revisions and all) is less than 1TB. All other wikipedias combined amount to something similar. This is probably less data than what Reddit ingests every day.

              • Less than 0.05% of the Wikipedia users have done any type of contribution to the content. The absolute majority is just visiting to read it.

              • The content of an encyclopedia changes way less often than any social network. Any page written can be a resource used for any high-school student doing research for an assignment. How many people bother to revisit week-old memes on Reddit or imgur, let alone something written decades ago? Yet, both Reddit and Wikipedia need to store all their content forever.

              • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago
                • most data on WMF servers is media files, most of them photos; Wikimedia Commons has at this point nearly 100 million of those; probably still less than many social media sites, though
                • this is true, but many people on social media are also only lurkers
                • the WMF projects get lots of changes every minute, just look at the recent changes page
                • rglullis@communick.news
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The “rule” of social media is that users split 1%/9%/90% on creators (prolific posters), participants (comments and reshares content that might be interesting to them) and lurkers (don’t necessarily signup and only visit to read). That means that we have 200 times more “active” (0.05% vs 10%) users on social media relative to wikipedia. The operational costs and the staff required to moderate these sites should follow this proportion as well.