We will need small and independent commercial providers for the Fediverse.
6 points
The Hacker News discussion that sparked this post also argued that Wikipedia was a reasonable counter-argument. My response then is the same as it is now:
- Wikipedia has a different usage model. Content there is read a lot less than it is written and a lot more permanent. You can store all of wikipedia in a small hard disk.
- When people make a change on Wikipedia, they are doing for their own good as well as others. Moderators on Social media are doing it solely to combat trolls and harassers.
- Wikipedia is not a business. They are a foundation and they’ve used that position to do questionable things as well. (not sharing their actual revenues, no financial support for their moderators, etc)
7 points
Wikimedia is raking in millions from donations. That money could easily also finance a social media site.
4 points
3 points
2 points
Wikipedia is also actively used by practically anyone that has a connection to the internet, too. Something like Lemmy has way higher costs per user (both financial and computational), and a significantly smaller user base.
4 points
Except that the hosting costs of Wikipedia are neligible. Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Guy_Macon/Wikipedia_has_Cancer
