It is more important than ever that the social web is not controlled by corporations. Today, Mastodon is taking another step towards its founding ideals: independence and non-profit ownership. We're transferring ownership of key assets to a new European not-for-profit entity, ensuring our mission remains true to a decentralised social web, not corporate control.
Surprised to see you of all people question why a project needs money to pay for things.
What for?
They said what for in the previous section, improving Mastodon’s “usability, discoverability, and trust & safety”. They tried to fundraise for a head of trust and safety last month, but failed. My impression is this is them trying to raise general donations to the project to pay for things like this, instead of individual campaigns for individual things.
Is the infrastructure being provided by the companies counted as part of this budget?
I thinks so, given the previous paragraph links to their sponsor page and says as such.
Surprised to see you of all people question why a project needs money to pay for things
I am not questioning the need for money. I am questioning the amount.
And yes, the reason I am asking this is precisely because I don’t believe the “not-for-profit” leads to better outcomes than any for-profit one, and I do not share the belief that all for-profit endeavors are bad.
To illustrate the point: I’d take good old Craigslist making more than $600 million per year as a tool against Big Tech and unethical corporations than any of these feel-good initiatives from Mastodon.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of this not-for-profit vs for-profit diatribe. If you mean that things like culture and structures matter more than the a project’s legal status, then I agree, but unless you’re going to point to particular issues you have with Mastodon’s then, again, I fail to see the relevance. The things Mastodon (the company) is seeking to improve are highly technical and specialised, where people working on them need good cross-disciplinary knowledge and experience, and understandably demand a high wage.
but unless you’re going to point to particular issues you have with Mastodon’s then, again, I fail to see the relevance.
The “particular issues” I have with Mastodon (or rather, with its leadership) are rooted in its cultural values.
I think that presenting itself as the saviors of civil online discourse is ineffective. It sounds good for this tiny majority that is already here, but does nothing to bring the masses that are still stuck inside the walled gardens of Big Tech.
The difference between for-profit and not-for-profit firms is not whether one makes money and the other one does not. It’s what’s done with that money. The difference is whether the net income is given to the firm’s major shareholders or kept within the firm.
You are confusing cause and effect and you are making a pointless distinction.
If all it took to qualify as a non-profit was to eliminate profit redistribution, we would have every sole proprietorship or small LLC entity turning itself to a 503, and then distributing its excess profit as salaries.
I’m definitely not doing that. I’m pointing out that the commenter above is correct and you appear to have a misconception about what non-profit means.
Surprised to see you of all people question why a project needs money to pay for things.
They said what for in the previous section, improving Mastodon’s “usability, discoverability, and trust & safety”. They tried to fundraise for a head of trust and safety last month, but failed. My impression is this is them trying to raise general donations to the project to pay for things like this, instead of individual campaigns for individual things.
I thinks so, given the previous paragraph links to their sponsor page and says as such.
I am not questioning the need for money. I am questioning the amount.
And yes, the reason I am asking this is precisely because I don’t believe the “not-for-profit” leads to better outcomes than any for-profit one, and I do not share the belief that all for-profit endeavors are bad.
To illustrate the point: I’d take good old Craigslist making more than $600 million per year as a tool against Big Tech and unethical corporations than any of these feel-good initiatives from Mastodon.
I’m sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of this not-for-profit vs for-profit diatribe. If you mean that things like culture and structures matter more than the a project’s legal status, then I agree, but unless you’re going to point to particular issues you have with Mastodon’s then, again, I fail to see the relevance. The things Mastodon (the company) is seeking to improve are highly technical and specialised, where people working on them need good cross-disciplinary knowledge and experience, and understandably demand a high wage.
The “particular issues” I have with Mastodon (or rather, with its leadership) are rooted in its cultural values.
I think that presenting itself as the saviors of civil online discourse is ineffective. It sounds good for this tiny majority that is already here, but does nothing to bring the masses that are still stuck inside the walled gardens of Big Tech.
The difference between for-profit and not-for-profit firms is not whether one makes money and the other one does not. It’s what’s done with that money. The difference is whether the net income is given to the firm’s major shareholders or kept within the firm.
You are confusing cause and effect and you are making a pointless distinction.
If all it took to qualify as a non-profit was to eliminate profit redistribution, we would have every sole proprietorship or small LLC entity turning itself to a 503, and then distributing its excess profit as salaries.
You mean 501©, and distribution of excess profit would at minimum evoke an excise tax and might cause loss of 501© status.
You are right about the code , but you are also making my point about why it matters if the whole endeavor is classified as for-profit or not.
I’m definitely not doing that. I’m pointing out that the commenter above is correct and you appear to have a misconception about what non-profit means.
People aren’t going to donate for unimportant things.