|
Gergely Orosz@gergely.pragmaticengineer.com |
I'm in the last phase of writing up research we did with @hejelin.bsky.social on Bluesky.
One thing I am only realizing now:
Bluesky is one of the very few social media companies that is NOT a for-profit (Mastodon perhaps the other?)
This is a massive, massive difference - and advantage.
5 replies 0 reposts 27 likes
|
Mike Lee Williams
@mlw.bsky.social
[ View ] |
this is extremely wrong. bluesky is a benefit corp. here's the first sentence of the wikipedia page describing benefit corps: "a benefit corporation is a type of for-profit corporate entity whose goals include making a positive impact on society"
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Laurens
@laurenshof.online
[ View ] |
mastodon is nonprofit yeah, and so is framasoft, who's behind peertube. being a social media org that is nonprofit matters, but in that framework cashflow, funding sources and runway matters even more
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Andy Baio
@andy.baio.net
[ View ] |
Bluesky is a Public Benefit Corporation, but that doesn’t mean they’re a non-profit like Mastodon. They have a social benefit in their company charter, but they’re still a for-profit corporation that has raised $8 million in professional funding.
1 replies 0 reposts 9 likes
|
Andy Piper
@andypiper.me
[ View ] |
Mastodon is not-for-profit correct
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Gergely Orosz
@gergely.pragmaticengineer.com
[ View ] |
It's also a disadvantage, of course, from the financial side of things. For-profit companies add ads into their social media products as soon as they can. They generate $$$ from this, and use that to further expand in ways not-for-profit companies simply cannot.
0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes