3 ms·

I actually agree with you there. And I think this is the way we will do it. So our current ways people can support us are through donations and that is it. Is

• mcny 9y ago
  Thank you for keeping an open mind. I don't think people will mind static ads but it shouldn't be a priority. Once you have enough eyeballs, I think you'll be saying no to the ad offers. I think of ads as fairweather friends. If you don't have visitors, they don't even need to kick you out. You'll get a $0.00 payout every month. So, I agree with you. Avoid ads for now. I think a static ad that's basically a tracked link to a sponsor isn't a bad idea and if there's no jacascript involved and it is just a link, I doubt there will be any backlash. I think someone like linode or digital ocean or heroku would be a good fit as an advertiser? I don't know how these things work. I do know that the money won't be free. You can't please everyone. I'd say when in doubt, listen to your contributors and donors. Thoughts?
• nileshtrivedi 9y ago
  I believe you're still missing the point. If you're going to create a business while controlling the underlying non-profit community, it creates a conflict of interest. You are misaligning your incentives. You stand to benefit if the non-profit website directly or indirectly drives users to your business. If "personal help/mentoring by experts" is the business, then the website is incentivized to put out confusing/contradicting content, so that users NEED expert help. It's okay if you still want to take the same path. But it does feel like exploitation to me. I feel much better contributing to Firefox than to Chromium - for example.