> With 1 billion users, $2/year gives you $2B/year, not $16B/year. I was doing the max theoretical if we had all 8 billion humans signed up. The better approac

> With 1 billion users, $2/year gives you $2B/year, not $16B/year. I was doing the max theoretical if we had all 8 billion humans signed up. The better approach would be to do something pegged to the minimum wage in the country but it's pointless trying to create completely theoretical finances for an imaginary company in a forum thread. The general idea I'm trying to get across is we could charge a vastly lower price for these things if there weren't such greedy and power hungry motivations underlying their financial and corporate structures. > This is not at all the model we should strive for when it comes to a social-network-as-utility. I agree it does seem like something that it would probably be better served via a non-profit but it's probably a tough sell. Maybe something like a cooperative might be a nice compromise.