Comment by bitmasher9

It's semantics but I like to separate money from profits. You need money to pay people and to survive but you don't need to be raking in endlessly growing piles of it. This is something that was really demoralizing about working for a big company, they could be making like 50000000000 a year in just profits but still be ruthless in getting more. Like I just want to make a product I'm proud of and I'm happy living a simple life, I am happier now making less money but not feeling like I'm endlessly milking customers.

I totally get/relate to your perspective, but to be the annoying leftie in your ear:

A) Sustainable revenue is a requirement for any company, yes, but the unlimited (above-inflation) growth demanded by most large corporations is absolutely not. Lots and lots of companies operate for a long time without expecting massive growth, raises n' all. MBAs pejoratively call such companies "lifestyle businesses"--as in "just pays for people to live"--but I'd call them "normal, healthy companies".

B) More fundamentally: the idea that a social media network can only be built by a single corporation owned by investors is an omnipresent, yet extremely toxic, assumption. Mastodon represents another extreme end of the capital<->labor spectrum where anyone can contribute to the network at any time with their own instance, but I think Bluesky is a hint of a less-pure--and therefor more feasible--future.

To use the language of my favorite dream, Chomskian Anarcho-Syndicalism: imagine a social media network organized by a democratic non-profit entity akin to the Python or Linux Foundations, that then contracts out work to a hierarchy of smaller, purpose-built teams ("syndicates"), each of which may in turn contract w/ other teams. Each team would have to attract talent and negotiate enough income to pay them sufficiently still, of course, but there would be no team leader to make a surplus profit from the system -- any "surplus" would stay at the non-profit level, and thus necessarily be reinvested back into the product.

In the current system, the reason Bluesky didn't do this off the bat is obvious: no one would loan them startup funds, as ownership investment is the de facto universal way to start up an unproven venture. But we can dream bigger and better, IMHO; both on a smaller scale by building upon already-proven open protocols like AT Proto, and on a larger scale by structuring the state & economy to support this kind of model equally, if not primarily.

At the same time I feel like a lot of companies grow much larger than they need to be simply because of bigger is better mentality. How many of Uber's 30,000ish employees are involved with making sure the app and backend database are working properly? Are they really doing 600 times more work than Craigslist at connecting sellers with buyers?

> but without profit, people can't get paid, and they'll stop building

I wholeheartledly disagree. People build things all the time for things other than profit. In fact, most of the greatest things ever built were a loss for those who built them.

Dignity is the best motivator. Profit only supercedes dignity when dignity is not on offer.

On the other hand, running something like BlueSky is not terribly expensive. A foundation with a reasonable endowment can do that indefinitely.

Initially, it can be funded by selling tools that do analytics or by donations (like Wikipedia).

Yes, but there is a path, and it's simplicity.

Lichess, is it bad? It basically solves the whole problem. If well-designed distributed social media site could be something like that. Donations are enough to support one guy at least.

There's the profit motive. It's funded by venture capital, so it has to grow at all costs (check) and then cash out.