• x1gma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    It’s not about being dumb and expecting stuff for free but a general anger towards subscription based models. Fair models exist and are possible, but are a collateral of the general hate.

    Then, free alternatives exist, and believe it or not, some people do not have a tiny monthly fee they could spare or do not want to pay for something that a free alternative exists.

    Threema tried exactly that, and failed comically.

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      People hate subscription based models because the company is maximising profit and engaging in every kind of bait and switch it can get away with

      That’s why I’m wondering if there would be an appetite for an ethical social network, where the DNA of the company is based upon covering running costs and only a moderate profit.

      The fact that it wouldn’t unreasonable hike prices once you’re hooked in or reintroduce ads to paid tiers would be the very appeal on the platform.

      Obviously, no-one is immune to being offered millions in ad deals to try and reverse that ethical stuff. Which is why I suppose it would either have to be a very public commitment to ethical behaviour from the outset which protects backtracking and sellouts somewhat. Or else it has to get founded as an actual not-for-profit to make a future change almost impossible. Developers still get paid of course, even very well. Just no-one has the incentive to maximise share value by shitty crooked behaviour.