FOSSDLE PieFedMastodon announces new European non-profit, change of CEO
submitted by
andypiper
blog.joinmastodon.org/2025/01/the-people-should…
What does this mean for John Mastodon's grandkids?
Yes. He is not a an-i-mal.
I feel like you've answered the wrong comment, and this *a-ni-mal*(? am I saying that right?) refers to someone else
This is a great move. Governance is extremely important for bigger OSS projects, and the "benevolent dictator" model has its limits.
Wait, is the money transferred to the US then back to the EU? And will the US-based non-profit still continue to exist or will it be replaced by a truly European one?
The 501(c)(3) is a fundraising entity, and will continue to exist. There will be a new independent European non-profit that will "own" (for the want of a better word) the other entities. Legal structures and things are not my forte (IANAL), that's my understanding of what is happening in so far as I'm involved in the discussions and what I'm able to tell you.
Banned
Like what?
I do like to have full markdown support that is for sure.
Banned
Search exists. I'm not sure downvotes make sense in the context of a microblogging app, but YMMV. There's a lot of things to work on, for sure.
Banned
"not sure downvotes make sense" -> it might not be a good fit for what the app is -> so maybe it would not make sense to implement.
We're working on this. It's part of Fediscovery. Optional opt-in discovery across instances, if a user wants their content to be discoverable across instances.
Search on Mastodon is annoyingly restrictive, but you're *never* getting "full search across all instances". Remote search just isn't a thing.
Even fucking Google is local.
He is stepping away from the CEO role to focus on the product. That means you are not getting anything he doesn't want, if anything he has more control over the functionality of Mastodon.
disliking posts on an app with no algorithm seems pointless
Banned
there's a big difference between running a service on volunteers, and having full-time folks to keep things running / answer the regulation discussions / keep maintaining / keep adding the features that folks are looking for. This is not primarily an infrastructure spend. There's also an amount of legal work involved, unfortunately. So, those are some of the elements we're looking at.
Banned
Can it? Because I wouldn't try to run a social media company with less than that. It's kind of shocking they make do with a tenth of it. Which I guess is helped by being staffed by the equivalent of a mid-sized McDonalds franchise.
If I was going to spend that much on anything beyond servers and full time employees I would spend it on marketing, though.
Nobody wants to spend money on legal work, but at a certain point it becomes necessary. It's not like they met up in a board meeting, discussed where money could best be spent, and decided that lawyers should be a priority.
However, if Mastodon goes down this path and does it well, they can create legal precedence that might benefit all open/federated social media organizations that follow. Especially in the current climate we could benefit a lot from having a strong social media actor representing the interests of an open web, in opposition to the armies of lawyers hired by the fascists of commercial social media.
Of course, when I donate to Mastodon I imagine all my money goes to developers. But rationally I'm aware that this might be a bit utopian.
So insightful, so grown-up, so convincing, and then
Sometimes I despair.
Banned
I did not, in fact, make a social media company. Rochko did.
And hey, I mostly agree with the diagnosis in your link. As always with business pitches, I'm more skeptical of the leap in logic from the diagnosis to the proposal for an alternative.
Also, if a software developer tells me they will have a project done in a year I immediately walk away. Show me a production plan or don't give me a deadline. But hey, that's just me and you're not actually pitching.
For now, if Flipboard gets there with Surf we can revisit and talk about whether they needed 5 million and a year or not. I don't think it's a terrible idea, but also don't think it's going to explode. I'm ready to be proven wrong, though.
What are you suggesting? That the money donated to Mastodon not be used on Mastodon?
Banned
I get the notion, however social networks do have an inordinate effect populations and how they think. Spending 5M€ on say, poor communities would help those poor communities (short or long term, dunno), but they could still be influenced by a shoddy social network (or multiple). Whether that sum effect is positive or not is debatable.
It's very difficult to make a judgement on utility of such a (comparatively) small sum and its target.
To be honest, I'm much more concerned about how people spend their money when they go shopping: buying non fair-trade goods like chocolate, clothes, coffee, phones, and so on, where they spend sums orders of a magnitude larger than a paltry 5-10€/month on mastodon.
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.
Banned
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 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.
Banned
You mean 501(c), and distribution of excess profit would at minimum evoke an excise tax and might cause loss of 501(c) status.
People aren't going to donate for unimportant things.
They are also the main developers of the Mastodon software. It is not just hosting the service. The software needs to be able to compete with Bluesky and right now it quite simply does not. The only way to get the quality needed is to have some full time lead developers. Also they need some proper admins to run the websites. Mastodon social is at 250,000 active users right now, but it is also fairly likely to grow fast with what Elon is up to with Twitter. Just to compare Twitter used to have 7500 employees, with a 1000 today.
Banned
I don't agree at all with the lack of ambition.
Well the fact is yes, Mastodon is still relatively small compared to Facebook, X or Bluesky. Mastodon has actually 7,616,908 users total: https://fedidb.org/software/mastodon. Which is a huge number, but most likely a lot of bot accounts and non-active account to be honest.
Now the reason why is Mastodon is not as large as Bluesky is debatable. I actually blame ActivityPub protocol and the complex nature of trying to become a federated platform.
Let's be honest now, most people do not care (or don't have the technical knowledge) to understand federation or decentralization. Hence people will just jump to the easiest solution: A big centralized server, aka X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and Bluesky. Same for search engines like Google.
it's not (only) for the instance. This is for paying full time jobs to manage and develop the software
No mention of the name Mastodon and copyrights which I seem to recall is one of the bigger complaints
These are part of the assets that will be transferred from the GmbH to the non-profit.
Given the concern, it would be good to be explicit in the blog post. What other assets does it genuinely need? The code is open source, people are free to host instances
Checking about getting it updated.
now updated.
Great news indeed then, go Mastodon!
Lemmy has the same issues I believe. Lots of people not exactly happy with the two core devs either