[mrtksn]

Doesn't do targeted ads, so doesn't have to have an EU cookie popup.

Doesn't have an app, so doesn't have to try to make you install the app.

Doesn't do registered users growth hacking, doesn't have to have sign-up dialog.

The problem is, if and when they decide to monetise this thing they will have to have all of these because the money people and the analytics will tell them they have to.

Everything is much more fun when it's paid by someone else, that's why the old web was so nice. The content was produced for free and the distribution was handled by VCs. Today, these VCs are recouping their investments.

[eloisant]

No, all the bloggers I was reading on the old web were paying for their hosting a few bucks a month and no VC were involved.

Some of them included ads but they were mostly in a sidebar.

[mrtksn]

They were paying for the costs? Then they were the VC. Some of them actually grew to be huge and wealthy.

[makapuf]

You equate VC with tracking and then equate VC with anyone that provides money whatever the intention. By that logic, you imply that anyone providing money (including a mom for his 14yo son) will track everyone and gather a lot of stats and push an app ? Remember WhatsApp did cost a few bucks a year and was self sufficient, it was bought by fb not because of cost of operation but to ensure market share.

[pjc50]

me paying $5 to wordpress: i'm a venture capitalist now mom

(seriously, this is a very silly way of using terms to cover extremely small amounts of capital)

[ValentineC]

Did you mean paying for PHP site hosting instead, or paying to remove ads on the WordPress.com SaaS?

[mrtksn]

The size of the capital doesn't change the reality of the financial structure.

[mathgorges]

I don’t think I understand the argument that you’re making.

Are you saying that anyone that pays for anything is a venture capitalist?

That doesn’t seem like a very useful definition, so I think I’ve misunderstood you ’:-)

[dym_sh]

> «if you use money — you are a capitalist»

[cesarb]

> Doesn't have an app

It does have an app. See https://joinmastodon.org/apps for not only the official app, but also literally dozens of third-party apps.

[makapuf]

Distributing a static HTML page content does not need a VC. Nginx on an RPI on my home connection does provide sufficient level of performance and availability. If I need more because my content is way popular, I guess a monetization scheme (asking for a tip) might cover it ?

[Nextgrid]

> If I need more because my content is way popular, I guess a monetization scheme (asking for a tip) might cover it ?

Hetzner will give you a powerful server for ~30 bucks/month and includes 20TB of bandwidth for free (and overages are charged at ~1$/TB, almost 90x less than AWS). That's enough to host and serve a lot of content.

[ziftface]

I really hope you're right but I don't think it will play out that simply for mastodon. I have high hopes for it, hopefully these problems are solved but with this rate of growth, what will happen when there's a big political event that used to cripple Twitter back in the day? I don't think tips will cover it.

[Nextgrid]

Mastodon (and the general "fediverse") is an inefficient disaster by design, but if you ignore that and go back to old-school forum software, your Raspberry Pi will be just fine for a few hundred concurrent users (and way more for read-only traffic).

[mrtksn]

If you are not getting paid for your servers you are the VC/Angel.

[zopa]

A bit of a difference in motivation between a hobbyist and a VC.

[eaplmx]

Agreed! Here you are more a patron or sponsor who's disinterestedly giving spare money for something you think is good for the rest of the people.

Although the Angel investor expects a few shares of a company, I like the analogy of an 'angel sponsor'.

[ysavir]

How does that make them the VC/Angel?

[mrtksn]

They provide the capital required for that venture.

[recursive]

So if I order lunch, am I providing the capital required for the venture of ordering lunch? Is there anything in the universe that's not venture capital?

When all you know is a hammer...

[mrtksn]

No. If you are s 14 years who is into hobbits and you are writing a fan fiction, your mom is a venture capitalist when feeds you and gives you pocket money which you used to buy a domain. She can be a venture capitalist or angel investor depending on her expectations. I guess it also can be a case of racketeering if she does that you just shut up, then you are the VC investing in your own stuff with the money you extorted by being a really annoying kid :)

Anyway, it doesn't matter. The gist is, someone else than the user paid for the experience without immediate expectation for profit from side channels and that's how we had free and awesome things.

[Nextgrid]

> The content was produced for free and the distribution was handled by VCs

And even that, content distribution was handled by a volunteer happy to chip in a few bucks to pay for shared hosting.

Content distribution (and infrastructure in general) nowadays is cheaper than ever thanks to technological advances (today's entry-level MacBook is more powerful than a lot of servers from 10 years ago).

There is absolutely a way to distribute content for very cheap nowadays if you know how to - you just have to avoid the rent-seekers like cloud providers.

[duckfruit]

On that vein, I recently joined home-barista, an old school web forum for coffee geeks.

That site is seemingly frozen in time from the early 2000s. There are no trackers - there's no need, since it is already filled with a self selected group. The ads are just simple banners. And best of all it filled with a group of passionate, kind and helpful folks. A simpler site from a simpler time. One of my favorite haunts on the web.

[solarkraft]

> Doesn't have an app, so doesn't have to try to make you install the app.

Well, it does, but does nothing user hostile with it, so doesn't gain anything from coercing them to install it.

[dmitriid]

> Everything is much more fun when it's paid by someone else, that's why the old web was so nice.

What are you talking about? The old web was filled with ads. They just weren't tracking you every nanosecond of your life.

Google's AdWords was launched in 2000. DoubleClick that Google acquired in 2008 was launched in 1995. Ad exchanges are from 1998. And so on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_online_advertising

[mrtksn]

> They just weren't tracking you every nanosecond of your life.

Exactly.

But only some of that was paid by ads.

[dmitriid]

> But only some of that was paid by ads.

Ah yes. They were paid by altruists who had the foresight to know that 30 years later they will be able to track everyone and collect their dues.

[mrtksn]

Those who relied on making profits were decimated as VC funded user experience was much superior. It was an era of land-grab.

[dmitriid]

Those who relied on anything were decimated in the bubble of 2001.

Also, you're pretending that all of those sites were making a profit, or operated under the assumption of making a profit. There was a lot of money thrown at any and all internet companies by the end of 1990s. It's just that the market was much smaller.