this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2023
804 points (99.4% liked)

Selfhosted

40443 readers
916 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

"the company looked at the history of social media over the past decade and didn’t like what it saw.... existing companies that are only model motivated by profit and just insane user growth, and are willing to tolerate and amplify really toxic content because it looks like engagement... "

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] phoneymouse 105 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I like Mozilla, I respect their mission and their good nature. I can’t help but feel the billions they receive from Google make it too easy for them to be, at best, unfocused and, at worst, lazy. They offer a lot of random services like this. I fear this play is just chasing another possible mediocre revenue generator for them. Like pocket, like Mozilla vpn and private relay, etc.

[–] deweydecibel 83 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Maintaining a web browser is an intensely cost and time prohibitive endeavor, especially nowadays. The FOSS community can maintain a lot of things but the sheer scale of Firefox, the need for expertise, the necessary labor, it just can't be done by volunteers and donations, at least not without using Chromium. They have to get a cash infusion from somewhere.

I don't like it anymore than you do but ultimately the issue isn't Mozilla, it's the state of the technology market. Silicon Valley is no place for a non-profit organization right now, no matter how much we need it.

What we need is regulations and anti-trust, but even that may not truly save us.

They need money. That's it. That's the long and short of it.

[–] valen 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Those donations cannot be used for Firefox development due to the structure of Mozilla.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's stopping web standards from being made simple or unchanging enough for a smaller project to maintain a functional web browser?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

At this point the web is about as complex as an operating system in terms of complexity. That needs really strong specific standards in order for it to work, and in turn projects like web browsers are huge and complex.

If someone wanted to build a web browser that only followed the simpler parts of the specifications, it wouldn't work for many websites* and people would not use that browser.

*Whether or not sites need to be so complex is another question entirely, but the reality right now is that they are

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Occasionally when I do web stuff I look into the big frameworks but quickly get overwhelmed and go back to simple html/css/js, so yeah I kind of just don't get what the point is or why anyone needs or wants complexity there. Large websites always do most stuff serverside anyway it seems, so where is this complexity even getting used? It is very mysterious to me. Suspect Google etc. are pushing stuff no one needs in this regard as well to move the web towards something only they can handle.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] RubberElectrons 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This seems like a reasonable and insightful take. Is there a way a non-profit could still survive in silicon valley? For ex, IETF isn't a profit focused organization.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

I'm not sure if this qualifies exactly but the FOSS 3D package Blender has been surviving for quite some time. They're in Amsterdam, not silicon valley, but they seem to do really well off primarily donations and funding from some big companies.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] paraphrand 16 points 1 year ago

I hope they hit on something stand-out soon. To establish more sustainability. Seems like everything is in change right now.

[–] JubilantJaguar 13 points 1 year ago

What should they be doing instead? Begging for donations? I do agree in general, tho. Seems they should at least be squirreling away some (or most) of that money into a foundation, because they're obviously going to need it one day.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Would be great if they did not get money from google. They could set.up a donations program or something and regularly ask for it like Wikipedia. Donation based browser, peoples Browser.

[–] krakenx 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You can donate to Mozilla, and I do. https://donate.mozilla.org/en-GB/

A lot of people will have to donate a lot to equal the amount they are getting from Google though, and if Google pulls that money I feel that Firefox would end before people donate enough to make up the shortfall.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Asking for a donation would be a damn near fatal blow to retention and they know it. Given how its going with Google's anti-trust case though, they'll need to ask for money at some point.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

I feel like this relationship of: one company pays a competitor to promote an unrelated product that could very reasonably be used to engage in anti-competitive behavior should at the very least be heavily regulated by the SEC, or possibly just outright prohibited. Alphabet is the epitome of the mega-corporation who has the resources to compete viciously in almost any industry, but has the breadth for plausible deniability about who their competition is.

"What? Mozilla isn't competition...browser? Oh you mean chrome? That little thing? Nah, we just do that on the side. We're an ad company."

Meanwhile: "What? Meta? You mean like Facebook? We don't compete with them, hah, remember Google+? They compete with TikTok...Oh ads? I guess so, but that's kind of a side thing. We do mobile os/web analytics/email/whatever."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kushan 52 points 1 year ago (27 children)

We desperately need a company like Mozilla to take the reigns of something like Lemmy. The original developers are far too biased and short sighted to see the bigger picture, it needs to be an independent group that promotes more open source development.

[–] ikidd 125 points 1 year ago (11 children)

Where do you get that from? I have no love for tankies, but from what I've seen, they've built a product that's free of their biases, opensourced it and thrown it over the wall with no strings attached.

If you want to make a rooten-tooten white supremacist nazi instance with Lemmy, you can do exactly that. Nobody has to federate with you, and you don't have to federate with them.

Strange take.

[–] Serinus 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I generally agree with you, you can't call that a strange take.

Their views are concerning, but so far I haven't seen them trying to force their views anywhere yet. And having a fork as a real option helps mitigate a lot of that risk.

I'm certainly okay with the $50k/year they're trying to make for working on this full time. I'd be fine with triple that.

If it gets out of hand, we have options. They're aware of that (in fact offered it), and have been acting appropriately afaik.

[–] deweydecibel 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The bottom line is, they started something that's bigger than them, and created more than enough tools to fork from them if they become a problem.

I always like to point to Emby/Jellyfin as a perfect example of how this is supposed to work. They created something excellent, the community joined in, and it got popular. Then the maintainers decided to try and cash in, and the community immediately responded by forking into what would become Jellyfin. And nowadays, the discussion is between Plex vs Jellyfin, you rarely ever hear people talk about Emby anymore.

After a certain point of user adoption, FOSS (and copy-left) software should be able to stand on it's own without the creator's direct involvement. The community can take the wheel if necessary. The Lemmy devs have provided enough tools to do exactly that, and I believe there are more than enough experienced devs in this community that we would not struggle to find the necessary talent.

That's doesn't mean there isn't still a risk, though. This is social media, the technology is only half the story. The other half is getting people to move. I don't think I need to explain to anyone here how hard it is to get an entrenched user base to abandon a platform whose mainteners have gone off the rails.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Strange take.

Not for folks who have been following the development. It’s one thing if it’s just a couple of devs working on the project and trying their best, it’s an entirely different thing when a couple of devs are shutting out large numbers of contributors (frequently subject matter experts which they desperately need at this point) over relatively trivial issues. It's become a pattern and will almost certainly continue. At this point a significant number of users have been lost because the devs have been largely unable to capitalize on previous waves on growth due to slow development. Because of all this Lemmy has an awful reputation even among the rest of the fediverse and particularly among people who have tried to contribute. A fork would probably be a significant improvement as far as brand perception goes.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

This is the first I've heard of "a couple of devs are shutting out large numbers of contributors (frequently subject matter experts which they desperately need at this point) over relatively trivial issues" and "Lemmy has an awful reputation even among the rest of the fediverse and particularly among people who have tried to contribute".

Can you give a summary or examples? I'm not trying to argue, but would just like to know more. I don't follow Lemmy development more closely than reading the dev summaries they post, so wasn't aware of any of this.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I dont know much about the primary developers of Lemmy, but from what I can tell this is a part time labor of love project for them. Its unreasonable to ask people to push beyond their boundaries or capacity so that their pet project can become a 1:1 replacement for an incredibly mature platform like Reddit overnight

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It’s one thing if it’s just a couple of devs working on the project and trying their best, it’s an entirely different thing when a couple of devs are shutting out large numbers of contributors (frequently subject matter experts which they desperately need at this point) over relatively trivial issues.

To the detriment of the community, the admins, and the concept of the fediverse overall.

[–] laverabe 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unfortunately opinions do not always match.

If a large group of people do not agree with the direction the Lemmy devs are making, why not get together and create a new site forked off Lemmy's source code?

It seems like the fediverse is a return to a more liquid internet, similar to the early internet of the 90s. A lack of existing large infrastructure here is actually advantageous for new sites to startup.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] deus 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It seems to me they're saying Lemmy needs corporate backing to grow? Cause if they were so bothered by the opinions of the Lemmy devs they could simply use Kbin instead.

[–] Eldritch 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Well that or use an instance that isn't theirs, or doesn't even federate with theirs, or simply block theirs.🤔 I mean this is really throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I have no strong love for leninists/stalinists, and think they accomplish little other than making actual socialists look bad while not being socialist themselves. But I'm not that put off by them. They're generally fairly intellectually weak, and easy to maneuver around. Should you choose to interact with them.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Kbin is not a good Lemmy replacement.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure if this is what that person meant, but, usually it's on the original development team to handle outreach and building the identity of the software - in Lemmy's case, they have a bit of a not-great reputation... Even if they had the reach, that reputation hurts.

Having Mozilla - or any top tier foss-friendly company - kinda take the reins a bit would probably be good.

[–] ikidd 6 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure if Mozilla is the one for that job, they have their own issues with community relations. I wish they didn't because the world needs Firefox.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's open source, anyone can fork the repo any time they want. The original devs won't like it but also there is bugger all they can do about it. It's just that it would be a full time job to take on and no one has the time.

[–] art 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The solution for capitalism-out-of-control is not more capitalism. The less big money players in the fediverse the better.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Mozilla is a non profit. The most "capitalist" they get is the Mozilla Corp a company owned by the foundation which is basically just for tax purposes. Having a big player in the fediverse helps.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

lemmy and reddit are too niche. mozilla getting into mastodon or friendica is far better

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JubilantJaguar 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Specifically, the model should be the Wikimedia Foundation. That is, a non-profit organization with lots of stakeholders and slow procedures to guarantee accountability, and lots of resources to guarantee it won't go away. This is the pragmatic least-bad solution to the problem of centralization on the internet.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wikipedia Foundation is also bloated and unfocused outside of their mainstay product. But like Mozilla, they generally do good with the bloat and unfocused resources. Inefficiencies are easy to identify but hard to mitigate.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (22 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They're a bit late to the party, but better late than never...

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

not really social media is basically booming right now with the implosion of twitter

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›