Yeah, I think a lot of the people who are against are the ones who don’t like the ad-removal model, because you are paying to remove ads on an app that uses a platform whose foundation is built against ads and tracking. The subscription model or one-time payment for life is fair IMO; people are free to support the dev (and please support the lemmy devs and instance admins too!). It’s the ads (and tracking that come with it) that’s kinda weird.
Thinking one step further one could implement a revenue share from ads or subscriptions or third party apps, that supports the instance you are registered to on a voluntary basis (we don’t want to turn this into Reddit after all).
This way the developer and the server instance owners could sustain their service, a hopefully symbiotic relationship.
But I’m just throwing ideas in the room, doesn’t mean they’re good in the long run.
As an end-user I believe I am entitled to the freedom to use, modify, and share the software I use. If your business model is incompatible with my values I won’t support you, simple as. I don’t have any problem monetarily supporting developers but not if they disagree with my principles.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this exact argument made against ad-blockers, too.
Irrelevant to the point I’m making. Whether something is open source or not does not impact your freedom to modify it, just the freedom to distribute your modifications.
Alt: proprietary software devs trying to live off their work as their primary income source while still allowing people to use their product for free
Get out of here with a level-headed response. We came to rabble.
Rabble rabble! Something something evil! Rabble!
I swear, lemmy users have proven to be so entitled. Just don’t buy it.
If it spies on me, if it shows me ads, then it’s not free.
Yeah, I think a lot of the people who are against are the ones who don’t like the ad-removal model, because you are paying to remove ads on an app that uses a platform whose foundation is built against ads and tracking. The subscription model or one-time payment for life is fair IMO; people are free to support the dev (and please support the lemmy devs and instance admins too!). It’s the ads (and tracking that come with it) that’s kinda weird.
Thinking one step further one could implement a revenue share from ads or subscriptions or third party apps, that supports the instance you are registered to on a voluntary basis (we don’t want to turn this into Reddit after all).
This way the developer and the server instance owners could sustain their service, a hopefully symbiotic relationship.
But I’m just throwing ideas in the room, doesn’t mean they’re good in the long run.
As an end-user I believe I am entitled to the freedom to use, modify, and share the software I use. If your business model is incompatible with my values I won’t support you, simple as. I don’t have any problem monetarily supporting developers but not if they disagree with my principles.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this exact argument made against ad-blockers, too.
You do have the freedom to modify the proprietary binary you’re being given. You just can’t distribute your modifications.
So it’s not free. Which is the point.
Irrelevant to the point I’m making. Whether something is open source or not does not impact your freedom to modify it, just the freedom to distribute your modifications.
No it’s not you just don’t understand that withouth collective control you can’t have individual control.
Reality: what you pay goes more to monetization than the user experience
Free as in?
Free as in price, wdym?
freedom