6 ms·

> there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free. Well that's of course OK with me : Bluesky should make their users pay. 10 % of users paying 1€/mont

> there is no reason to offer a valuable feature for free. Well that's of course OK with me : Bluesky should make their users pay. 10 % of users paying 1€/month, 1 % paying 10 €/month, for instance. That's ok, we're paying a service. But the API access and federation should remain free.

x-complexity 2y ago
> But the API access and federation should remain free. ...no. APIs are not free cost-wise: They require server compute to serve requests, at minimum. IMO: Require API users to put down $2 to obtain access, and offer higher tiers for higher limits. I.E What Twitter's API already does.
strogonoff 2y ago
This is an extremely unpopular take in today’s world where 99% of what you use is expected to be “free” and subsidized by those with interests thoroughly misaligned with yours. Nevertheless, it is my strong opinion that offering paid service is the only way to a healthy ecosystem, healthy competition, products that actually benefit the user, and the market that works as the market is supposed to (and that Big Social innovating[0] the subversion of this model is a tradegy with net negative effects on society). Not offering paid[1] service to customers means ultimately either 1) dying or 2) making someone else your paying customer (e.g., the advertisers being offered the users as the product).[2] That “someone else”, by being the source of revenue, will dictate how the service evolves, and their interests will not be aligned with the users’ except by sheer accident. In case of services like Bluesky, I doubt API access can be excluded from the equation, since it costs money, and when inevitably abused a lot of it, sadly. Federation overhead could in theory be subsidized by paying customers, or there could be smart controls such as letting certain servers federate for free if it benefits paying users while charging others an honest fee[3]. Finally, let’s not forget the good old “charge for the app”. Sure, being open means someone can build another, cheaper app, and someone will use it, but believe it or not—that’s normal competition; make your app better, respect your users, turn profit. Bluesky’s accepting large investment is a signal of not going in this direction, and is therefore worrying. [0] It could be said that some companies (e.g., Adobe and Microsoft) did something like that earlier, subverting the market via offering a product for free by not seriously chasing pirates. When someone’s choice is between two paid products—instead of free awesome product everyone pirates vs. some mediocre paid product—the competition works much better. However, their core offers were still paid, and crucially those were not social media services that prey on our attention and anxiety. [1] Before someone mentions the disadvantaged: offering subsidized options to those who need it is not mutually exclusive with a straightforward commercial model. [2] There’s also 3) becoming another Wikipedia, which happens every so often… Let’s be realistic. [3] A lot of courage would be required, as I can already hear the “walled garden” outcries.
- ianopolous 2y ago
  Very well said. This is the approach we're taking with peergos, paid accounts unless you self host. I wrote some of our thoughts on this here: https://peergos.org/posts/the-social-dilemma https://peergos.org/posts/the-social-dilemma
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    1. I am not sure it is possible to compete with a free product. By definition it will have more users. That’s the tragedy, competition is not possible. 2. My approach is not “one more product will be the answer”, more like “fixing the incentives and making the market work will enable many products”.
    - ianopolous 2y ago
      1. It depends on the time scale. The question is if you can outlive their VC funding. 2. How do you fix the incentives short of fixing capitalism to remove software VCs?
      - strogonoff 2y ago
        1. They are supported by paying customers (the advertisers), not just VC money. 2. You don’t need to get rid of VCs, it’s orthogonal. Just make interoperation/complete API coverage required by law to be available to any user if you have more users than certain amount. It would neuter the lock-in when anyone can make a third-party GUI that has no ads and interoperates with any other social platform (meaning no “all my friends are there” effect).
        ianopolous 2y ago
        Yes, legally requiring open APIs and interop beyond X users is the best way forward. There is some tension with allowing product changes and deprecating old APIs though. Maybe something like mandate versioned APIs, and keep old versions around for at least 2 years after newer version is released.
jazzyjackson 2y ago
Why is ability to post a service but ability to see what everyone posts not a service? I would think its the other way around, users are providing value, let them do it for free, you find the content valuable and want a firehouse to see what everyone is saying, you should pay.
cglong 2y ago
I keep seeing people say BlueSky should be a paid service, but X gets mocked ruthlessly for this.
- rswail 2y ago
  What X gets mocked for is that the feature of being "verified" by Twitter was worth paying for. But X turned the "blue tick" into "this person has paid" which totally removed any value for the blue tick. It was yet another self-own, along with things like getting promoted on the feed. X could have made money by selling features (eg tweetdeck) and other useful things, but they didnt. Of course, then politcally it became a "this person is a MAGA person" so Musk had to start handing out "free" blue ticks to big accounts to avoid that appearance. To the point that people were putting in their name "didn't pay for blue"
  - exodust 2y ago
    > "...other useful things, but they didnt" But they did. Nobody pays for X premium just to get a blue tick. Being verified I guess is part of it, but they're paying to get other things including less ads, Grok access, longer posts & videos, communities, media studio, monetization, and other things.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are playing for the blue tick solely because it makes their posts rank higher in the feed.
      - exodust 2y ago
        The blue tick doesn't cause the reply boost. The paid plan level does, from small to large boost. Blue tick means you supplied a valid phone and credit card - a strong indicator of a genuine account. I'm trying it to check out Grok, which is impressive now that it can handle current events and return posts and web links. On the negatives, they claim "download videos" as a feature of paid plans. This is false advertising. Many videos cannot be downloaded. The uploader must specifically set the video as downloadable, and many do not. X is deliberately misleading about this. It was a key reason I paid. Screenshot of page comparing tiers and features: https://imgur.com/a/AMEppji https://imgur.com/a/AMEppji
Zambyte 2y ago
It's interesting to me that you consider servicing API requests to not be a service.
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Of course they're a service, but a lot of people started calling Musk evil when he started charging for them, so now we (who love bluesky) have to pretend like they're not an online service but have somehow become a moral obligation.

x-complexity 2y ago

> But the API access and federation should remain free. ...no. APIs are not free cost-wise: They require server compute to serve requests, at minimum. IMO: Require API users to put down $2 to obtain access, and offer higher tiers for higher limits. I.E What Twitter's API already does.

strogonoff 2y ago

This is an extremely unpopular take in today’s world where 99% of what you use is expected to be “free” and subsidized by those with interests thoroughly misaligned with yours. Nevertheless, it is my strong opinion that offering paid service is the only way to a healthy ecosystem, healthy competition, products that actually benefit the user, and the market that works as the market is supposed to (and that Big Social innovating[0] the subversion of this model is a tradegy with net negative effects on society). Not offering paid[1] service to customers means ultimately either 1) dying or 2) making someone else your paying customer (e.g., the advertisers being offered the users as the product).[2] That “someone else”, by being the source of revenue, will dictate how the service evolves, and their interests will not be aligned with the users’ except by sheer accident. In case of services like Bluesky, I doubt API access can be excluded from the equation, since it costs money, and when inevitably abused a lot of it, sadly. Federation overhead could in theory be subsidized by paying customers, or there could be smart controls such as letting certain servers federate for free if it benefits paying users while charging others an honest fee[3]. Finally, let’s not forget the good old “charge for the app”. Sure, being open means someone can build another, cheaper app, and someone will use it, but believe it or not—that’s normal competition; make your app better, respect your users, turn profit. Bluesky’s accepting large investment is a signal of not going in this direction, and is therefore worrying. [0] It could be said that some companies (e.g., Adobe and Microsoft) did something like that earlier, subverting the market via offering a product for free by not seriously chasing pirates. When someone’s choice is between two paid products—instead of free awesome product everyone pirates vs. some mediocre paid product—the competition works much better. However, their core offers were still paid, and crucially those were not social media services that prey on our attention and anxiety. [1] Before someone mentions the disadvantaged: offering subsidized options to those who need it is not mutually exclusive with a straightforward commercial model. [2] There’s also 3) becoming another Wikipedia, which happens every so often… Let’s be realistic. [3] A lot of courage would be required, as I can already hear the “walled garden” outcries.

ianopolous 2y ago
Very well said. This is the approach we're taking with peergos, paid accounts unless you self host. I wrote some of our thoughts on this here: https://peergos.org/posts/the-social-dilemma https://peergos.org/posts/the-social-dilemma
- strogonoff 2y ago
  1. I am not sure it is possible to compete with a free product. By definition it will have more users. That’s the tragedy, competition is not possible. 2. My approach is not “one more product will be the answer”, more like “fixing the incentives and making the market work will enable many products”.
  - ianopolous 2y ago
    1. It depends on the time scale. The question is if you can outlive their VC funding. 2. How do you fix the incentives short of fixing capitalism to remove software VCs?
    - strogonoff 2y ago
      1. They are supported by paying customers (the advertisers), not just VC money. 2. You don’t need to get rid of VCs, it’s orthogonal. Just make interoperation/complete API coverage required by law to be available to any user if you have more users than certain amount. It would neuter the lock-in when anyone can make a third-party GUI that has no ads and interoperates with any other social platform (meaning no “all my friends are there” effect).
      - ianopolous 2y ago
        Yes, legally requiring open APIs and interop beyond X users is the best way forward. There is some tension with allowing product changes and deprecating old APIs though. Maybe something like mandate versioned APIs, and keep old versions around for at least 2 years after newer version is released.

jazzyjackson 2y ago

Why is ability to post a service but ability to see what everyone posts not a service? I would think its the other way around, users are providing value, let them do it for free, you find the content valuable and want a firehouse to see what everyone is saying, you should pay.

cglong 2y ago

I keep seeing people say BlueSky should be a paid service, but X gets mocked ruthlessly for this.

rswail 2y ago
What X gets mocked for is that the feature of being "verified" by Twitter was worth paying for. But X turned the "blue tick" into "this person has paid" which totally removed any value for the blue tick. It was yet another self-own, along with things like getting promoted on the feed. X could have made money by selling features (eg tweetdeck) and other useful things, but they didnt. Of course, then politcally it became a "this person is a MAGA person" so Musk had to start handing out "free" blue ticks to big accounts to avoid that appearance. To the point that people were putting in their name "didn't pay for blue"
- exodust 2y ago
  > "...other useful things, but they didnt" But they did. Nobody pays for X premium just to get a blue tick. Being verified I guess is part of it, but they're paying to get other things including less ads, Grok access, longer posts & videos, communities, media studio, monetization, and other things.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are playing for the blue tick solely because it makes their posts rank higher in the feed.
    - exodust 2y ago
      The blue tick doesn't cause the reply boost. The paid plan level does, from small to large boost. Blue tick means you supplied a valid phone and credit card - a strong indicator of a genuine account. I'm trying it to check out Grok, which is impressive now that it can handle current events and return posts and web links. On the negatives, they claim "download videos" as a feature of paid plans. This is false advertising. Many videos cannot be downloaded. The uploader must specifically set the video as downloadable, and many do not. X is deliberately misleading about this. It was a key reason I paid. Screenshot of page comparing tiers and features: https://imgur.com/a/AMEppji https://imgur.com/a/AMEppji

Zambyte 2y ago

It's interesting to me that you consider servicing API requests to not be a service.

pessimizer 2y ago
Of course they're a service, but a lot of people started calling Musk evil when he started charging for them, so now we (who love bluesky) have to pretend like they're not an online service but have somehow become a moral obligation.