I use Bluesky and Mastodon. Mastodon better hits where I want the fediverse to go but Bluesky is so much easier to use. Signup, UI, flagship app, feeds, and content is just so much less of a headache. But it feels like it’s a matter of time before it’s enshittified.
I was thinking about how much I hate big tech but there’s a lot of small and mid-size companies that I have neutral to positive views on. Canonical, Mozilla, 37 Signals, Odoo are the ones that come to mind. All of those have a revenue model but also actively support open source initiatives and developers. None are perfect but better than “big tech” and get more done than just donation based development.
It feels like there needs to be some for-profit companies (without ads and maintaining privacy) that can help support the development around ActivityPub and maintain apps and servers that are easier to onboard and easier to use. Does this exist?
What could be some non-evil revenue models? I pay $20/month for a blogging platform for my business website. Maybe have a service to host AP servers for businesses or journalists? Personal private encrypted cloud services like photo backups that are integrated with AP?
If you are not angry, you are certainly reading as someone who is facing an amygdala hijack. Your responses do not seem as someone who is collected and you do not seem willing to listen to what others are trying to express.
Case in point:
You are right, we are talking only about the features they share (i.e, profit-seeking) and whether this means that they should be treated equally. I didn’t say they were completely different. But do they have to?
Let me try again: you are asserting that a small-scale farmer who works out on their own volition and makes a living by selling their produce at a higher price that it cost them (i.e, seeking profit) is a net-negative to society and as unethical as a huge corporation like Walmart. You are saying “the scale doesn’t matter, any one working looking for profit is bad”. Is this correct or am I misrepresenting you?
I’m not going to continue chatting with someone giving me absurd diagnoses just because I disagreed with them on the internet.
This is a very inappropriate and offensive thing to say to someone just because you disagree with them. It’s a strange conclusion to jump to as your top explanation and I sure hope this isn’t something you say to people’s faces and is just the result of how you behave online.
Have a good one. Don’t bother responding to me unless having the last word is that important to you. That was messed up and you are a very rude person to do something like that.
Look, I am sorry. I didn’t mean to offend you and I didn’t mean to “diagnose you”. You asked me why I was responding as if you are angry, and I tried to illustrate how your responses are sounding on this side of the conversation. I might be completely wrong, but this is how I am perceiving it.
You are wrong and that was fucked up. I don’t just tell people “something is wrong with your brain/emotional regulation” a few sentences into a conversation. That was a shitty thing to do and I don’t care what your “perception” was. You need to really step back and recognize how wrong you were to do that.
I’m out dude. I wasn’t mad before but I sure am now.
Look, I already apologized and I mean it. I will just ask you now to reread the thread. You are stating that any independent service provider is as morally bankrupt as a large corporation like Meta. Don’t you think that is also not at all insensitive and offensive?