Lemmy's Image Problem
wedistribute.org
The popular Reddit alternative's user count has grown a lot over the past year. One problem, though: users and admins can't delete images.

Highlighting the recent report of users and admins being unable to delete images, and how Trust & Safety tooling is currently lacking.

  • Sean Tilley@lemmy.world
    OPEnglish
    21·
    9 months ago

    So, here’s the thing: these guys are working full-time on the project. Their only source of income, grants aside, are donations via fundraising. Effectively, they are putting the project above themselves.

    The common model for this nowadays is the Patreon / OpenCollective / LiberaPay, where donations are usually given continuously over an indefinite period. It’s closer in form to crowdfunding than it is traditional institutional donations.

    This is going to sound shitty: just as the expectation is set that no one should make demands of work done for free, so too is the expectation that development work technically isn’t owed a single penny. Any donor can stop giving, for any reason, at any time.

    If I as a donor feel my needs aren’t being met, I can stop donating. As a collective action, a bunch of dissatisfied supporters can do the same all at once.

    I’m not saying either side should threaten each other. But let’s not pretend that this is some hoity-toity Utopian model where donors selflessly hand over money with no expectations, and the developer just works on whatever. If your livelihood depends on it, if you can’t put bread on your table without it, then you’ve got to keep your backers happy.

    • rglullis@communick.newsEnglish
      5·
      9 months ago

      Effectively, they are putting the project above themselves.

      No. They are working on something according to their own terms and their own value scales. They are giving a clear indication of what they are willing to do for the miser amount of money they are getting, and are telling quite clearly what they do not value highly enough to justify spending their time on it.

      They would be sacrificing themselves only if they bent over and worked on something they already said they don’t want just because other people see value in the work they already done and want them to keep pushing out the missing functionality.

      This is going to sound shitty: just as the expectation is set that no one should make demands of work done for free, so too is the expectation that development work technically isn’t owed a single penny. Any donor can stop giving, for any reason, at any time.

      It sounds shitty because it is shitty. The donation-based model is insufficient and unsustainable. What you are describing is the main reason that I’d rather shut down any of the communick instances over turning to “donation-based” access. At the same time, the reason that I have managed to keep things running (even if not profitable) is that by refusing to play this game I don’t put myself in an unsustainable situation.

      The surprising thing is to see how even people who have been involved in the space for so long continue to advocate for the donation-based model. Perhaps it would help everyone if we accepted reality and started telling people that it is not okay to push people to work for free? That donations are only a way to show support for what people are doing and do not entitled them to make demands of any kind? Thay if you want something done according to your exact preference and expectations you need to enter a proper contract where both parties agree to the terms?

      This is why I was a bit frustrated with your last blog post. You acknowledge that there is a problem with FOSS development, but instead of trying to elaborate on a alternative model, it went down the route of victim-blaming the FOSS developers who you think should swallow the opportunity cost and keeping cranking out code. This is not healthy at all.