As a rule of thumb, we’ve observed that a team of 5 trained moderators appears to provide
ample coverage and redundancy for servers of about 1,000 active users
That’s a fascinating bit of information. I would expect 5 moderators to provide coverage for more users. I am wondering how they came up with that statistic (will update the comment if I find an answer).
Remember that offliine/IRL community management experience can be just as important as online experience
Interesting idea, wondering what’s the IRL presence of the fediverse…
If you’re building toward participatory or democratic governance, consider establishing a
proposal and voting system (some teams we spoke with use Loomio, but multiple options
exist) for major policy decisions.
That’s soooo important, I love when communities create polls to decide on policy changes.
Avoid promoting brand-new members unless you already have a pre-existing relationship with them
I have followed some discussion on multi-level hierarchies on the fediverse, wondering if there are any instance implementing that…
Consider charging for accounts or offering paid memberships.
Hell no!
We hope there will be more resources available in the future, particularly tooling around legal compliance. This is one of the big infrastructural gaps we point out in our main report
That’s a big issue, I would be interested in hosting an instance available to other people, but I don’t want to end up in jail and I lack the resources to make sure that won’t happen…
That was an interesting read, it seems there is an in-depth analysis of the report here.
For context, I am the top donor at my instance, I recognize that there is a need for funds. BUT, I believe it’s important for the fediverse to be accessible to everyone regardless if they have the funds for that.
If other people want to pay and be paid, that’s fine, but for a lot of people in the open source sphere it leaves a bit of a bad taste.
Basically it becomes something very different once it’s a product you’re selling. I’m honestly not sure it’s a good advice - your users will rightfully expect a lot more from you if they pay for the product, and you’ll probably not make enough money for it to really make sense. So it’ll be more work, more obligations, and monetary incentives won’t be strong enough for it to make sense.
Encouraging users to make donations to cover the cost of operation, on the other hand, makes all the sense in the world.
The handful of paid customers I have on Communick are better than any “supporter” I had on my open source projects. They understand the value of their time, expectations are adjusted with proper communication and none of them act entitled just because they pay.
I’m happy it’s working for you! Communick also seems to be a bit of a different concept than paying a monthly fee for a user on a Mastodon instance.
At least personally, I’m willing to give a monthly contribution to my Mastodon instance to keep it up and running, but if it started charging its users (even if it was a smaller sum than what I currently contribute) I would cut the donations and flee elsewhere. I guess I’m neither a rational consumer nor a “good” supporter, but that’s just who I am I guess.
Of course it’s great if people can have healthy transactional relationships. And we need to normalize paying for products like software and social media, even if it’s available for free. But having the user-generated internet hidden behind a paywall will not, for me, ever be an acceptable solution.
Moderation wise, it works. Business-wise, not so much.
paying a monthly fee for a user on a Mastodon instance.
That is exactly how it works. One membership = one account for Mastodon/Lemmy/Matrix/Funkwhale
having the user-generated internet hidden behind a paywall will not, for me, ever be an acceptable solution.
But it’s not paywalled! The websites are visible for anyone. Anyone can follow Communick users. The only thing that is different is that people that sign up for Communick are paying from the get-go for the service they are being provided, like any other utility.
@rglullis@cabbage In a way, it’s just like splitting utility bills with flatmates.
Many instances do the same. They require members to pay at least a (reasonable) minimum amount in a year. This is also well stated since day 0 in their registration form.
Dopamine received, initiating hyperfocus protocol!
That’s a fascinating bit of information. I would expect 5 moderators to provide coverage for more users. I am wondering how they came up with that statistic (will update the comment if I find an answer).
Interesting idea, wondering what’s the IRL presence of the fediverse…
That’s soooo important, I love when communities create polls to decide on policy changes.
I have followed some discussion on multi-level hierarchies on the fediverse, wondering if there are any instance implementing that…
Hell no!
That’s a big issue, I would be interested in hosting an instance available to other people, but I don’t want to end up in jail and I lack the resources to make sure that won’t happen…
That was an interesting read, it seems there is an in-depth analysis of the report here.
What is the problem with paid accounts?
For context, I am the top donor at my instance, I recognize that there is a need for funds. BUT, I believe it’s important for the fediverse to be accessible to everyone regardless if they have the funds for that.
But no one said about turning every instance into a paid one.
If other people want to pay and be paid, that’s fine, but for a lot of people in the open source sphere it leaves a bit of a bad taste.
Basically it becomes something very different once it’s a product you’re selling. I’m honestly not sure it’s a good advice - your users will rightfully expect a lot more from you if they pay for the product, and you’ll probably not make enough money for it to really make sense. So it’ll be more work, more obligations, and monetary incentives won’t be strong enough for it to make sense.
Encouraging users to make donations to cover the cost of operation, on the other hand, makes all the sense in the world.
The handful of paid customers I have on Communick are better than any “supporter” I had on my open source projects. They understand the value of their time, expectations are adjusted with proper communication and none of them act entitled just because they pay.
I strongly believe that we need to change the general mentality and that charging a little bit from everyone is better than relying on few generous people to make up for freeloaders
I’m happy it’s working for you! Communick also seems to be a bit of a different concept than paying a monthly fee for a user on a Mastodon instance.
At least personally, I’m willing to give a monthly contribution to my Mastodon instance to keep it up and running, but if it started charging its users (even if it was a smaller sum than what I currently contribute) I would cut the donations and flee elsewhere. I guess I’m neither a rational consumer nor a “good” supporter, but that’s just who I am I guess.
Of course it’s great if people can have healthy transactional relationships. And we need to normalize paying for products like software and social media, even if it’s available for free. But having the user-generated internet hidden behind a paywall will not, for me, ever be an acceptable solution.
Moderation wise, it works. Business-wise, not so much.
That is exactly how it works. One membership = one account for Mastodon/Lemmy/Matrix/Funkwhale
But it’s not paywalled! The websites are visible for anyone. Anyone can follow Communick users. The only thing that is different is that people that sign up for Communick are paying from the get-go for the service they are being provided, like any other utility.
@rglullis @cabbage In a way, it’s just like splitting utility bills with flatmates.
Many instances do the same. They require members to pay at least a (reasonable) minimum amount in a year. This is also well stated since day 0 in their registration form.