3 ms·

Why charge users at all? Social software could be funded entirely by voluntary donations or a small foundation.

by pdog 8y ago

decasia 8y ago
It's a good question. I guess I would say that in my limited experience, co-operatives that fund by providing products and services (food, housing) seem to accumulate less organizational bloat and overhead, because their continued funding is directly coupled to providing a good user experience. But in foundations and donation-based nonprofits, what you see is that they become organizationally focused on chasing donations, they have more and more irritating "please donate to us" fundraising staff, they may have to bend their mission towards whatever can please the local philanthropists, and they sometimes end up seeming more worried about organizational survival (via procuring money) than with whatever their mission is supposed to be. Another way of putting this is that it seems pretty hard to make voluntary donations provide stability, and organizations like stability. I'm open to having my mind changed about this, but it seems to me that it creates some major new organizational failure modes when you decouple the mission from the source of revenue.
Jaruzel 8y ago
Based on how often Wikipedia runs banners asking for donations, I'm not sure the 'voluntary donation' model actually works. The plain truth of it is that most people[1] want their internet fix for free, and are prepared to expose all manner of personal information in order for it to STAY free. The moment Facebook actually starts charging for features, people will start to jump ship en-mass to the next free social platform. --- [1] Us lot on HN are not 'most people'.
- detaro 8y ago
  Wikipedia has and spends a lot of money though. 250+ employees, $50+ million yearly expenses, $10+ million yearly profits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...
- Loughla 8y ago
  I would argue that people are only willing to share all manner of personal data for free because they don't actually understand what is out there about them. I live where HN has absolutely no audience, think middle of nowhere midwest. And I can 100% say that not one person I talk to has any idea what data is available about them, for sale, right now. They don't even understand why it's important to know what permissions your apps on your phone ask for. I think if tech folks made an effort to get people to understand, in language they can access, what data is out there, we would see a massive (attempt at a) shift in how people use the internet Edit: Proof of what I say, that i just remembered. My father is extremely right wing, pro-Trump. He was told, by whatever 'news' agency he happens to listen to on AM radio (Maybe Laura Ingram?) that Facebook was doing awful things and they explained, in the most basic terms, what kind of data Facebook may have on you. So father dear deleted his Facebook account. And opened an Instagram.
wsy 8y ago
1) It would validate the approach. If somebody is not willing to pay $1 per month, the value of the service for them is obviously too low. 2) it would make abuse much harder: registering 1M fake users becomes costly, and the payment leaves a track to a real credit card.

Why charge users at all? Social software could be funded entirely by voluntary donations or a small foundation.

by pdog 8y ago

Why charge users at all? Social software could be funded entirely by voluntary donations or a small foundation.

It's a good question. I guess I would say that in my limited experience, co-operatives that fund by providing products and services (food, housing) seem to accumulate less organizational bloat and overhead, because their continued funding is directly coupled to providing a good user experience. But in foundations and donation-based nonprofits, what you see is that they become organizationally focused on chasing donations, they have more and more irritating "please donate to us" fundraising staff, they may have to bend their mission towards whatever can please the local philanthropists, and they sometimes end up seeming more worried about organizational survival (via procuring money) than with whatever their mission is supposed to be. Another way of putting this is that it seems pretty hard to make voluntary donations provide stability, and organizations like stability. I'm open to having my mind changed about this, but it seems to me that it creates some major new organizational failure modes when you decouple the mission from the source of revenue.

Jaruzel 8y ago

Based on how often Wikipedia runs banners asking for donations, I'm not sure the 'voluntary donation' model actually works. The plain truth of it is that most people[1] want their internet fix for free, and are prepared to expose all manner of personal information in order for it to STAY free. The moment Facebook actually starts charging for features, people will start to jump ship en-mass to the next free social platform. --- [1] Us lot on HN are not 'most people'.

detaro 8y ago
Wikipedia has and spends a lot of money though. 250+ employees, $50+ million yearly expenses, $10+ million yearly profits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation#Financial...
Loughla 8y ago
I would argue that people are only willing to share all manner of personal data for free because they don't actually understand what is out there about them. I live where HN has absolutely no audience, think middle of nowhere midwest. And I can 100% say that not one person I talk to has any idea what data is available about them, for sale, right now. They don't even understand why it's important to know what permissions your apps on your phone ask for. I think if tech folks made an effort to get people to understand, in language they can access, what data is out there, we would see a massive (attempt at a) shift in how people use the internet Edit: Proof of what I say, that i just remembered. My father is extremely right wing, pro-Trump. He was told, by whatever 'news' agency he happens to listen to on AM radio (Maybe Laura Ingram?) that Facebook was doing awful things and they explained, in the most basic terms, what kind of data Facebook may have on you. So father dear deleted his Facebook account. And opened an Instagram.

wsy 8y ago

1) It would validate the approach. If somebody is not willing to pay $1 per month, the value of the service for them is obviously too low. 2) it would make abuse much harder: registering 1M fake users becomes costly, and the payment leaves a track to a real credit card.