• gabe [he/him]@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nope, they are being paid now. They receive an immense amount of donations now, enough to likely make a solid monthly income. Take a look at their liberapay page if you don’t believe me. I understand that to a degree, but it only goes so far. When they are actively ignoring safety features despite its urgency in spite of that fact is difficult to justify.

    • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Take a look at their liberapay page if you don’t believe me.

      I took a look. “Lemmy receives US$392.03 per week from 287 patrons.”

      enough to likely make a solid monthly income.

      Approximately $850 per month each. Is that a solid income? Lots of developers are making $850 per day!

      When they are actively ignoring safety features

      The license agreement clearly places this onus on the instance operators. If they cannot commit to those terms, why did they accept the agreement? It is not like someone holds a gun to your back and forces you to start a Lemmy instance.

      • gabe [he/him]@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry for not being more focused on being nicer to the devs of lemmy after problems that were discussed nearly a month ago being ignored have caused me and other instance admins to have to deal with the stress of dealing with CSAM federating into our instances and having to witness that content in order to remove it.

        That is sarcasm by the way. In comparison to how I actually feel currently, I could be a lot more indignant about this but I am fighting that urge as it is not productive.

        • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Nothing cares whether you present yourself as being nice or not. Information has no feelings.

          But the Lemmy devs clearly pushed that responsibility downstream under the contractual terms of using the software. Maybe that made the agreement a bad deal, but nobody else had to ever agree to the bad terms. It seems you did agree to it. Why?

          What the contract also allowed, however, was the ability for you to modify the software as you see fit. That part is a good deal. It seems the solution is staring you right in the face. Since you’re already committed, why spend your typing here and not in your favourite code editor?

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        850/day? That’s crack smoking money. Where do I sign up for this?!

        For the record that’s sarcasm and the comment is bullshit. The average salary for a developer in the USA is 140,000$, https://www.salary.com/research/salary/listing/senior-software-developer-salary

        The comment’s math would mean developers are making roughly 306,000/year. More than double the actual average.

        In fairness, 392.03 a week averages out to 18,817.44 which is also not in that range.

        • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          The comment’s math would mean developers are making roughly 306,000/year.

          Yes, developers at places like Google are making that much. Not the average developer, but nobody said the average developer.

          • toasteecup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Correct no one did, you however said “lots of developers” even if you added up all of developers at the FAANG companies you still would not have an appreciable percentage of the developers in the US workforce let alone the world. So no. Not lots of developers. A very small few. Truthfully probably even fewer than that because not even Google wants to pay 300k per developer only to qualified/experienced developers.

            • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              if you added up all of developers at the FAANG companies you still would not have an appreciable percentage of the developers in the US workforce let alone the world.

              Hmm. I’ve never taken “lots” to be a proportional term before. The dictionary uses “a lot of people at the gala last night” as an example of how “lots” is often used.

              What kind of gala is attended by an appreciable percentage of the world’s population? Words can mean whatever want them to mean, of course, but in terms of common usage, surely it implies something like hundreds of people at best?

          • toasteecup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I did 850 x 30 x 12 usual salary math. But I was also sleep deprived so perhaps not the best choice.

    • moreeni@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/blob/main/LICENSE

      The software provided as is. Period. They never agreed to be support boys for someone, and the amount of work doesn’t really correlate to the amount of money they get from donations unless they both live in a third world country.

      https://jacobtomlinson.dev/posts/2022/dont-be-that-open-source-user-dont-be-me/

      It’s just a matter of not being entitled, that’s it. All I’m asking for is so that people would be more polite to FOSS devs. If they stop doing their work right now what are you going to do? Implement the mod tools yourself? Then go ahead.

      • gabe [he/him]@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m sorry, but I have difficulty being polite to someone who has actively ignored addressing safety concerns that were brought up months ago. FOSS or not.

        • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stop misconstruing it as safety. It’s about legality. Nobody’s safety is in jeopardy because they saw an illegal image accidentally. This is about following the law, not protecting the safety of users.

          • toasteecup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            nobody’s safety is in jeopardy

            You know, except for those abuse victims whose pictures are being spread around lemmy. Just sayin’

            • EhForumUser@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The theory behind why CSAM is illegal is that if someone is willing to pay for CSAM it incentivizes production of even more CSAM content to receive more payment. That incentivized additional production means even more abuse. A perfectly reasonable take and something that I think can be demonstrated.

              But why would you accidentally seeing CSAM prompt you to give payment to create that incentivization? Are you worried that you’re a closeted pedophile that will be ready to shower those who record such content to see more and more as soon as you get your first taste?

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I thought it was pretty apparent we were talking about Lemmy, but okay.

              The statements were about the Lemmy devs can and/or should be doing for safety. They simply do not have the power to stop child abuse by developing a social media platform. So then the safety in question must be the safety of people using Lemmy, because the Lemmy devs have some direct power over that.

              I’m sure you feel very morally aloof with your righteous retort, though.

          • gabe [he/him]@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            It ties into safety as well, websites have “trust and safety” teams. This is where it falls under. Sorry for not being more concise.

          • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            “CSAM laws aren’t for the safety of real people” is one of the hottest takes I’ve ever seen in my life

            • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Straight outta reddit with that one.

              I’m just going to copy paste my other comment:

              I thought it was pretty apparent we were talking about Lemmy, but okay.

              The statements were about the Lemmy devs can and/or should be doing for safety. They simply do not have the power to stop child abuse by developing a social media platform. So then the safety in question must be the safety of people using Lemmy, because the Lemmy devs have some direct power over that.

              I’m sure you feel very morally aloof with your righteous retort, though.

              • The Cuuuuube@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Yes. Obviously we’re talking about Lemmy. We just still fundamentally disagree on the forms of harm, psychic and physical, that can be experienced through the rapid propagation of CSAM. Lemmy’s lacking mod tools have been a major topic of discussion for a while now. I don’t care to carry on this conversation because it’s clear our starting points are too far apart to meet in the middle

                • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think the other guy’s comment is well suited as a response to this, so again I’ll copy paste:

                  The theory behind why CSAM is illegal is that if someone is willing to pay for CSAM it incentivizes production of even more CSAM content to receive more payment. That incentivized additional production means even more abuse. A perfectly reasonable take and something that I think can be demonstrated.

                  But why would you accidentally seeing CSAM prompt you to give payment to create that incentivization?

                  How could reason possibly prevail when the subject matter is so sensitive?