5 ms·

A non-profit is run by real people and a social network needs an infrastructure. There are a lot of bills to be paid. The money paying the bills was obviously e

A non-profit is run by real people and a social network needs an infrastructure. There are a lot of bills to be paid. The money paying the bills was obviously earned by someone doing things for profit or is donated by a lottery winner. I don't trust lottery winners, especially when they want to manage my personal data "for free". If you're not paying for the product, you are the product. That's why I only use social networks with a realistic monthly/annual fee, like Xing.com or meetup.com.

blowski 10y ago
What about Firefox, Linux, jQuery? Am I their product? A lot of Facebook's infrastructure is about advertising and tracking. Also, if you could run some kind of P2P social network you distribute a lot of the costs. So I disagree that the choice is between a large corporate-owned social network or no social network at all. A non-profit network is feasible, if tremendously difficult.
- NumberCruncher 10y ago
  As a Linux user I have to admit this is a good argument. I like how DHH thinks about it. Make a simple product (with his own words: it is not rocket surgery) which solves problems, do it for-profit and put a price on it. After earning your salary and paying your bills you can still do rocket surgery for fun and give back to the community. Or do it also for profit promoting yourself as a professional or even your product. That's totally fine for me because in Rework he even points out that this is the part of the Basecamp marketing strategy (Out-teach your competition). If someone brands his social network as "non-profit" only to put ads on my screen hoping for my paid op-out, that is not OK for me. I trust humans who work for real money and sometimes give back to the community but I don't trust saints. Anyhow, we may be different and that is totally OK.
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    Not trying to come off as a true saint. I just believe marketplaces shouldn't be run by corporations. All these corporations are sucking the life out of the economy by imposing monopolistic taxes on everyone in their "networks". Why because VC only fund monopolies and the stock market rewards giant hoards of cash off-shore. Is it fueled by jealousy, some, but imagine if all the businesses your talking about didn't have to pay 70 cents a click to advertise and they were rotated or some other more user friendly way display ads. or if you bought enough through a marketplace to cover your own costs you didn't need to see any ads. Non-profits aren't bound to maximize profits they just have to cover costs. I think it would be more of a protocol than a service.
sharemywin 10y ago
I'm not saying the non-profit couldn't have advertising just that someone would have more control over their personal data with an option to pay to opt-out. Maybe use transactions to cover their usage. options for data storage and clients I think it's focus would be on control and transparency. Of course, salaries have to be paid etc. but as the large companies control more and more of communication, distribution, and marketplaces (all of which are winner take all markets) I see serious problems ahead. Especially the way VCs have skewed business growth with their herd mentality and the stock market not punishing tech companies for hoarding money and not paying out dividends.
- NumberCruncher 10y ago
  >> I'm not saying the non-profit couldn't have advertising [...] with an option to pay to opt-out. This is in my understanding "for-profit".
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    A non-profit can make money it just has a social agenda as well. It would also end up paying taxes like a for-profit probably too.
    - NumberCruncher 10y ago
      I am familiar with the definition of "non-profit" according to the law and that's why I don't like them. I like Watsi but it's an other story.
      - sharemywin 10y ago
        Is'nt wikipedia, world wide web consortium, icann? non of these for profit internet companies could exist without nonprofits to set up standards.
        sharemywin 10y ago
        eff.org was another one.
mbrock 10y ago
Non-profits have revenue. They can and do charge for memberships, services, and products. There is no reason to assume that a social network run by a non-profit would be for free.
tga 10y ago
A good example of what you're talking about is Telegram [https://telegram.org https://telegram.org]. > Telegram is supported by the Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov,[9] who is now a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis,[10] travelling the world in self-imposed exile.[11] Its client-side code is open-source software, whereas its server-side code is closed-sourced and proprietary.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  I'm thinking something like wikiepdia owning facebook. which has a protocol other implement.
chrismcb 10y ago
Just because you aren't paying for something different mean you are the product. And just because you are the product doesn't mean you are the only product.

blowski 10y ago

What about Firefox, Linux, jQuery? Am I their product? A lot of Facebook's infrastructure is about advertising and tracking. Also, if you could run some kind of P2P social network you distribute a lot of the costs. So I disagree that the choice is between a large corporate-owned social network or no social network at all. A non-profit network is feasible, if tremendously difficult.

NumberCruncher 10y ago
As a Linux user I have to admit this is a good argument. I like how DHH thinks about it. Make a simple product (with his own words: it is not rocket surgery) which solves problems, do it for-profit and put a price on it. After earning your salary and paying your bills you can still do rocket surgery for fun and give back to the community. Or do it also for profit promoting yourself as a professional or even your product. That's totally fine for me because in Rework he even points out that this is the part of the Basecamp marketing strategy (Out-teach your competition). If someone brands his social network as "non-profit" only to put ads on my screen hoping for my paid op-out, that is not OK for me. I trust humans who work for real money and sometimes give back to the community but I don't trust saints. Anyhow, we may be different and that is totally OK.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  Not trying to come off as a true saint. I just believe marketplaces shouldn't be run by corporations. All these corporations are sucking the life out of the economy by imposing monopolistic taxes on everyone in their "networks". Why because VC only fund monopolies and the stock market rewards giant hoards of cash off-shore. Is it fueled by jealousy, some, but imagine if all the businesses your talking about didn't have to pay 70 cents a click to advertise and they were rotated or some other more user friendly way display ads. or if you bought enough through a marketplace to cover your own costs you didn't need to see any ads. Non-profits aren't bound to maximize profits they just have to cover costs. I think it would be more of a protocol than a service.

sharemywin 10y ago

I'm not saying the non-profit couldn't have advertising just that someone would have more control over their personal data with an option to pay to opt-out. Maybe use transactions to cover their usage. options for data storage and clients I think it's focus would be on control and transparency. Of course, salaries have to be paid etc. but as the large companies control more and more of communication, distribution, and marketplaces (all of which are winner take all markets) I see serious problems ahead. Especially the way VCs have skewed business growth with their herd mentality and the stock market not punishing tech companies for hoarding money and not paying out dividends.

NumberCruncher 10y ago
>> I'm not saying the non-profit couldn't have advertising [...] with an option to pay to opt-out. This is in my understanding "for-profit".
- sharemywin 10y ago
  A non-profit can make money it just has a social agenda as well. It would also end up paying taxes like a for-profit probably too.
  - NumberCruncher 10y ago
    I am familiar with the definition of "non-profit" according to the law and that's why I don't like them. I like Watsi but it's an other story.
    - sharemywin 10y ago
      Is'nt wikipedia, world wide web consortium, icann? non of these for profit internet companies could exist without nonprofits to set up standards.
      - sharemywin 10y ago
        eff.org was another one.

mbrock 10y ago

Non-profits have revenue. They can and do charge for memberships, services, and products. There is no reason to assume that a social network run by a non-profit would be for free.

tga 10y ago

A good example of what you're talking about is Telegram [https://telegram.org https://telegram.org]. > Telegram is supported by the Russian-born entrepreneur Pavel Durov,[9] who is now a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis,[10] travelling the world in self-imposed exile.[11] Its client-side code is open-source software, whereas its server-side code is closed-sourced and proprietary.

sharemywin 10y ago
I'm thinking something like wikiepdia owning facebook. which has a protocol other implement.

chrismcb 10y ago

Just because you aren't paying for something different mean you are the product. And just because you are the product doesn't mean you are the only product.