Can an optional subscription feature be implemented? This would help admins offset the cost of running a server, and hopefully advance adoption of new instances. Paypal and Stripe would be 2 good APIs to begin subscription modeling.
This feature was apparently turned down before because it wasn't in the form of a question.
jelutz77
All 15 comments
The problem with centralized payment methods is that it's not fine for a decentralized social network when non-standarized services are being implemented that can be easily remade when the flagship service went down. E.g. it would take another patch to implement an alternative payment system when Paypal or Stripe went out of business (which is still very unlikely to happen, but a possible scenario). I think it should be up to the admins to implement centralized and proprietary payment methods.
koyuawsmbrtn
on 26 Aug 2019
I think there would be a problem where admins implementing such system themselves are going to spend a lot of time doing so since they'd have to work with or around masto's code.
If instead of integrating a payment system directly there was an API of sorts to programmatically create accounts (unless this is already covered in moderation API), any payment integration can be easily implemented through that.
Deiru2k
on 27 Aug 2019
There's just one instance with paid registrations. Nobody else would need it. Also implementing nonfree code in free software adds up even more drama.
koyuawsmbrtn
on 27 Aug 2019
an API of sorts to programmatically create accounts
@Deiru2k It could be done with either POST /api/v1/accounts (provided you collect username, email, and password), or it can be done through CLI (tootctl accounts create), or it can be done via single-sign-on with LDAP/CAS/PAM/SAML. Payment would be managed at that external layer, not within Mastodon.
trwnh
on 29 Aug 2019
The problem with centralized payment methods is that it's not fine for a decentralized social network when non-standarized services are being implemented that can be easily remade when the flagship service went down. E.g. it would take another patch to implement an alternative payment system when Paypal or Stripe went out of business (which is still very unlikely to happen, but a possible scenario). I think it should be up to the admins to implement centralized and proprietary payment methods.
It's a good point that dependencies upon external services would be bad. If there was such a thing, it could be implemented as part of a plugin system, but that's a long stretch.
However, there might be something simpler to accommodate such a need? I'd imagine there's a single "create account" endpoint, if so, then the simplest implementation would be that Mastodon asks an external endpoint whether the account creation is validated or not, with a possible redirection to that external endpoint, before effectively creating the account. Then, the external endpoint can be a payment system (validating the account creation means here providing payment), but it's easy to imagine other validation systems (verify the email address domain, or provide an SSO token, etc.).
bnjbvr
on 13 Nov 2019
The problem with centralized payment methods is that it's not fine for a decentralized social network when non-standarized services are being implemented that can be easily remade when the flagship service went down. E.g. it would take another patch to implement an alternative payment system when Paypal or Stripe went out of business (which is still very unlikely to happen, but a possible scenario). I think it should be up to the admins to implement centralized and proprietary payment methods.
It's a good point that dependencies upon external services would be bad. If there was such a thing, it could be implemented as part of a plugin system, but that's a long stretch.
However, there might be something simpler to accommodate such a need? I'd imagine there's a single "create account" endpoint, if so, then the simplest implementation would be that Mastodon asks an external endpoint whether the account creation is validated or not, with a possible redirection to that external endpoint, before effectively creating the account. Then, the external endpoint can be a payment system (validating the account creation means here providing payment), but it's easy to imagine other validation systems (verify the email address domain, or provide an SSO token, etc.).
Yes, this is a good idea. Some kinda callback function for the payment system that is going to be implemented. Wouldn't it be nicer to have a way to enter some merchant credentials like API endpoint, authorization keys etc. and then having them redirect to some kinda locked invitation code that's behind this paywall? Also why paywall Mastodon? That's exactly what's Gab doing and it wouldn't benefit the users though I can understand that no one would donate to smaller instances like mine as we live in this "Why should I pay for it when I can get it for free?" world.
Some thought experiments:
https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2019/07/statement-on-gabs-fork-of-mastodon/
https://developer.paypal.com/docs/checkout/
koyuawsmbrtn
on 14 Nov 2019
Not in favor of this one: The idea of introducing payments and a paywall system into vanilla Mastodon sounds like it would quickly endanger what makes the network free and open. I'd even take supporting ads by comparison. I'd rather someone writes a plugin for this, then lets server admins who want it to install that manually. Perhaps a constructive alternative would be to make Paypal / Patreon / etc donation links more obvious on profiles?
MirceaKitsune
on 15 Nov 2019
Boy, I am...honestly in two minds about this idea. On one hand, it's not like paywalled invites aren't already a thing (donate to our Patreon and you get an invite, etc.). Hell, even forums generally have some kind of premium feature system for donators. However, I concur that with fediverse already being difficult to explain to people at times, encouraging hosts to pick up paywall stuff has associations with Gab etc., gives off the impression that fundamental features won't be free like Twitter (even if in practice you could just find an instance with a more free policy), locks out people who aren't as financially solvent, and in general is just a really bad look.
Since exactly what potential paid donators should be entitled to should be determined by instance admins, I wonder if maybe it should be handled like Discord roles? So instead of tying it to any specific functions, all it does is mark the user in a certain category and the admins can easily filter them in the back-end, and offer them whatever perks they want. But I don't think any of this should be tied to basic server functions; this is a slippery slope that has way too much potential to be abused.
For all it's worth, a lot of forums have a system as basic as "if you donate you get a shiny badge saying you supported us" and give the shiny badge and turn their name gold or something. You'd be surprised how many people would donate just for the shiny badge -- I find a system like that positively encourages contributing and being proud of contributing, rather than conversely making people feel locked out for not paying up.
asterselene
on 17 Dec 2019
For all it's worth, a lot of forums have a system as basic as "if you donate you get a shiny badge saying you supported us" and give the shiny badge and turn their name gold or something. You'd be surprised how many people would donate just for the shiny badge -- I find a system like that positively encourages contributing and being proud of contributing, rather than conversely making people feel locked out for not paying up.
This sounds like a great idea honestly. I would actually do it like Discord does it e.g. bigger uploads and more post characters. Something that keeps users paying without benefiting the few rich.
koyuawsmbrtn
on 17 Dec 2019
For all it's worth, a lot of forums have a system as basic as "if you donate you get a shiny badge saying you supported us" and give the shiny badge and turn their name gold or something. You'd be surprised how many people would donate just for the shiny badge -- I find a system like that positively encourages contributing and being proud of contributing, rather than conversely making people feel locked out for not paying up.
This sounds like a great idea honestly. I would actually do it like Discord does it e.g. bigger uploads and more post characters. Something that keeps users paying without benefiting the few rich.
I have a hard time advocating any systematic benefits for people who pay, to be honest -- even if in theory it's giving people above and beyond usual functionality, in practice something like that will always be seen as a paywall. I feel like donating should be portrayed more as a donation, and any rewards just simply thanks for that. That's why so many forums use cosmetics for that, and splotch "thank you for donating!" very loudly on it, so people can be like "see, I'm doing my part to help this community!" and other people can see that and be like "heck, maybe I should be a good person and help this community too." (Because ideally that's what it should be, donating because you want to help, not because you feel pressured to.)
Of course, there are uses for the mods to be able to keep track of these things in the back-end; for instance, sometimes forums will do things like letting donators have two votes instead of one in the next poll regarding the future of the site. And in the end you can't really prevent people from putting their own limits and benefits from that. But Mastodon has always been less about stopping people from doing things and more about what it encourages people to do and not to do, and I feel like encouraging people to be able to buy tangible benefits compared to their peers is somewhat contradictory to Mastodon hopefully becoming a place for marginalized people to have a voice outside capitalistic pressures.
asterselene
on 17 Dec 2019
I would say: Why not having both and letting the admin decide if they either want "Pro features" or "Paid accounts"?
koyuawsmbrtn
on 14 Jan 2020
Mastodon design is a lot about what it encourages people to do/not to do moreso than it'll stop anyone from doing anything (it's open source code, after all). I worry that adding support for this is encouragement of capitalistic paywalling.
asterselene
on 14 Jan 2020
what about "Media Quota System & Paid mode".
dimlau
on 15 Jan 2020
The scenario is as follows:
- A new user wants to have an account, but has to pay for registration or have to pay for more features.
2a. The new user just goes to another free Mastodon server with the same features, or...
2b. The new user pays and will become frustrated (or even angry) after it finds out that there where free options with exactly the same features.
A much better scenario is to give the new user the option to donate money after it is already registered and is satisfied with the Mastodon server. This gives users with different financial situations the same change to enjoy Mastodon.
So it's a useless feature request.
joenepraat
on 23 Apr 2020
More or less yes. I use the new announcement feature to call for donations. That worked out pretty well all the time.
koyuawsmbrtn
on 23 Apr 2020
Related issues
sturmen
路
67Comments
alex73630
路
56Comments
SelfsameSynonym
路
96Comments
miguelpeixe
路
61Comments
ashfurrow
路
73Comments
Most helpful comment
I have a hard time advocating any systematic benefits for people who pay, to be honest -- even if in theory it's giving people above and beyond usual functionality, in practice something like that will always be seen as a paywall. I feel like donating should be portrayed more as a donation, and any rewards just simply thanks for that. That's why so many forums use cosmetics for that, and splotch "thank you for donating!" very loudly on it, so people can be like "see, I'm doing my part to help this community!" and other people can see that and be like "heck, maybe I should be a good person and help this community too." (Because ideally that's what it should be, donating because you want to help, not because you feel pressured to.)
Of course, there are uses for the mods to be able to keep track of these things in the back-end; for instance, sometimes forums will do things like letting donators have two votes instead of one in the next poll regarding the future of the site. And in the end you can't really prevent people from putting their own limits and benefits from that. But Mastodon has always been less about stopping people from doing things and more about what it encourages people to do and not to do, and I feel like encouraging people to be able to buy tangible benefits compared to their peers is somewhat contradictory to Mastodon hopefully becoming a place for marginalized people to have a voice outside capitalistic pressures.