I've been seriously thinking about giving YouTube the few dollars a month required to get rid of the adverts, which of course I'm really conflicted over! It's not the money - it's who it's going to... Will any of it go to those who actually made the videos? I suspect not, since any who do put their own videos there, make it from adverts, as far as I know. Except for the pay-to-view movies they offer, I guess. But maybe the likes of Vevo get some of it. Maybe it's explained somewhere? Well yes, it is...
So it's possible the makers of videos will get a bit when I look at their videos. I doubt it's much, but then I won't be giving much, will I? Well, US$12.99 a month, I guess. Slightly less conflicted now...
People would move to a paid alternative to FB for the same reason LJ users move here - because LJ keeps pissing people off. Look for 'newbyday' spikes here during 2016 and 2017 for examples...
And because LJ (and FB) are free, you can afford to keep using them while testing the new one. And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think, as those that really care about it are willing to pay to keep it going - and consider the free users are paying too by providing them with content to read.
duckduckgo is better for image searches than Google sometimes, in that it gives you mostly what's relevant to your search and not a lot of stuff that isn't. It keeps improving, but has started to show adverts now. :(
Just looked at Telegram - but the first question they asked for was my phone number, which put me off! Can it have public messages?
$13 is asking a lot. Anyway, I'm quite safe as Youtube Red isn't available in Russia.
*** And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think***
That depends on what features are available to only paid users. That is, you need to be clear whether your network is essentially donationware or paid users get some serious exclusive features, in which case you gonna cripple your platform for most. Also it's still an open question if the model is viable for a network as huge as FB. But I of course agree that an ad-free site has a cleaner feel to it. On the other hand, if you pay for hosting anyway, finding ways to make your stand alone blog connected may be the way to go. No network will let you be as free as a stand-alone. Never searched images on the duck, will give it a try. Telegram has public channels. You subscribe to channels and create your own. I don't know if there's a limit to how many channels you can create, but multiple for sure. Some are bot channels where people can get automatic answers or trigger some automatic actions, but I haven't really looked into it.
***$13 is asking a lot.*** Not compared to pay TV that was about $100! But I've not signed up, deciding it'd make more sense to actually watch the stuff on the two streaming services I'm actually already subscribed too! (Amazon's and CuriosityStream.) My main problem is my TV's not net-connected. But the tablet I have is OK for streaming stuff, which is better than sitting at my desk to watch video.
Assuming the basics are being able to post and have a friends and communities feed, it's reasonable for that I think.
Whether that's a good (economic) model for a FB alternative is hard to say. Technically though, my guess would be that a distributed system would be better than the central server model. Maybe open-source software that would allow you to support X number of users on your own site with the means to communicate with other sites running the same software. Thus no single point of failure, and they could be both paid or free sites.
How to balance the load on a site that has a very popular user would need to be considered though. But that I'm sure is a more-or-less solved problem, probably. Hmmm. Blockchain? [Searches...] https://akasha.world/ :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-12 09:06 am (UTC)https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/72902?hl=en
So it's possible the makers of videos will get a bit when I look at their videos. I doubt it's much, but then I won't be giving much, will I? Well, US$12.99 a month, I guess. Slightly less conflicted now...
People would move to a paid alternative to FB for the same reason LJ users move here - because LJ keeps pissing people off. Look for 'newbyday' spikes here during 2016 and 2017 for examples...
https://www.dreamwidth.org/stats/stats.txt
And because LJ (and FB) are free, you can afford to keep using them while testing the new one. And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think, as those that really care about it are willing to pay to keep it going - and consider the free users are paying too by providing them with content to read.
duckduckgo is better for image searches than Google sometimes, in that it gives you mostly what's relevant to your search and not a lot of stuff that isn't. It keeps improving, but has started to show adverts now. :(
Just looked at Telegram - but the first question they asked for was my phone number, which put me off! Can it have public messages?
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-13 08:12 pm (UTC)*** And you don't have to pay for DW anyway, but enough do to keep it afloat. That's a good model for a social network I think***
That depends on what features are available to only paid users. That is, you need to be clear whether your network is essentially donationware or paid users get some serious exclusive features, in which case you gonna cripple your platform for most. Also it's still an open question if the model is viable for a network as huge as FB.
But I of course agree that an ad-free site has a cleaner feel to it. On the other hand, if you pay for hosting anyway, finding ways to make your stand alone blog connected may be the way to go. No network will let you be as free as a stand-alone.
Never searched images on the duck, will give it a try.
Telegram has public channels. You subscribe to channels and create your own. I don't know if there's a limit to how many channels you can create, but multiple for sure. Some are bot channels where people can get automatic answers or trigger some automatic actions, but I haven't really looked into it.
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-17 08:38 am (UTC)DW's paid features are here...
https://www.dreamwidth.org/support/faqbrowse?faqid=4
Assuming the basics are being able to post and have a friends and communities feed, it's reasonable for that I think.
Whether that's a good (economic) model for a FB alternative is hard to say. Technically though, my guess would be that a distributed system would be better than the central server model. Maybe open-source software that would allow you to support X number of users on your own site with the means to communicate with other sites running the same software. Thus no single point of failure, and they could be both paid or free sites.
How to balance the load on a site that has a very popular user would need to be considered though. But that I'm sure is a more-or-less solved problem, probably. Hmmm. Blockchain? [Searches...] https://akasha.world/ :)
(no subject)
Date: 2017-11-25 11:05 am (UTC)https://joinmastodon.org/#how-it-works
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastodon_(software)
The 'nothing can be edited or removed' part of blockchains is great for preventing censorship, but not so good for managing your own stuff!