You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

BreesusLovesYou ago

All this talk of individual donations is nice, but there's not realistically enough of us willing/able to make large enough reoccurring donations indefinitely to keep up with the expenses of running a serious social media site. We need a mass campaign to contact someone with deep enough pockets that they could eat costs on their own, that might also share the free speech ideals of Voat. Difficult to know who if anyone would be willing to publicly take the criticism that would come with tolerating some of the uglier sides of free speech, but we should figure out candidates that might and coordinate a twitter campaign to try to get their attention. I'd nominate John McAfee to start.

9143915? ago

With only 30 people documented we already have 1/9 of the currently stated monthly operating costs pledged. Voat has hundreds of active content submitters, thousands of active commenters. We definitely can fund this ourselves.

BreesusLovesYou ago

Little donations might help pay for servers and such. It doesn't get voat a real staff and keeps it relegated as a couple guys side project until they run out of the energy to keep doing something for nothing or life gets in the way as we've already seen from Atko.

9147322? ago

As Putt said in the announcement, if Voat can fund itself for a few months more he should be able to introduce the infrastructure necessary to properly low costs and maybe take on a larger staff in the near future. This is a step in that direction.

BreesusLovesYou ago

No he didn't. He said he wasn't going to shut down immediately but he was scaling back resources and talked about his own sacrifices to keep voat running. No where in there was anything to suggest that short of a deep pockets investor would voat stay open. People in the comments assumed if they could raise the server and software costs all would be fine, but completely ignored that he basically said, "Look I can't do this for free forever."

Go read what he actually wrote. https://voat.co/v/announcements/1866053

9147469? ago

I suppose I was more referring to several of the comments he made within the announcement thread. His position right now is not one of giving up, but of warning us of potential worst case scenarios becoming reality. He has, within this thread, stated his intention to contact free speech supporting celebrities, to make significant changes to Voat and its management given the opportunity to do so, etc.

Read through his recent comment history to see what I mean. History.

BreesusLovesYou ago

I know he made some comments on not giving up yet and all, but they all also centered around the idea of needing one year's funding to include being able to hire a small staff for voat to go forward long term. You can't crowd fund that. There's nothing in his comments that says it he gets a few months the situation will get better and he'll be able to hire anyone. It's all, "I need mass funding to get a staff if this going to be a thing."

So donate a little if you can, that's nice, but it's not the answer. From everything Putt has said a big enough investment upfront to have the capital to hire a staff for a year is the only way voat stays open long term. I don't know if financially that is the correct way for him to look at the situation, but that's what he has said.

Any effort to save voat needs to include ways to try to help Putt find a serious investor. "Everybody give five bucks," isn't gonna do it.

9147772? ago

I agree morally trustworthy investors would be ideal, but I see nothing wrong with trying to get enough of the userbase to pledge $6000+ a month. With 40+ users we have almost $1000 already. I'm confident enough people pledging $5 or $10 a month could buy as substantially more time.

BreesusLovesYou ago

Like I said it's nice, and maybe it does buy some time. But realistically people posting in a thread, "Hey I'll donate $X / month" that they may or may not actually follow up on isn't a sustainable model.

All it takes is a relatively small percentage of those who pledged to donate to not follow up one month - be it because they had unexpected expenses in life, forgot or lost interest, or just straight up lied because they wanted both fives in a comments section but never really intended to donate, or whatever - and expected revenue from donations pledged goes tits up.

So again, its nice if those who can donate do. But Putt can't count on that as a budget, hire a staff off of that or do any of the things he says he needs to stay open.

9148332? ago

I agree. Obviously pursuing this as a crutch is best if we have more pledges than we actually need, because yes people will fail to deliver. Doing this in the meantime is by no means a bad idea or a waste of time. No it's likely not sustainable but it is worth attempting to see what the results yield, for those who can afford to try pledging something small.