hostops

Competitor with no content, users is not a competitor. Youtube should be forced to share content they do not own. Just for the sake of competition.

I am sorry did not see your were planning on doing that. Well do not make your plan alone. Let's make it together.

So here is matrix space now: https://matrix.to/#/#fairdonationplatform:matrix.org

I can see a lot of interest here. I believe we should start working on it. By working I mean it would not hurt if we continue the discussion. And if we can agree on implementation we actually start working on it.

Anyone interested in making this real, welcome to join matrix space: https://matrix.to/#/#fairdonationplatform:matrix.org

Never heard of them. Should we contact them?

1. It may not be only for web based stuff. The only things organization would need is the website and a bank account. Which is pretty standard these days.

2. We could have both systems. There should still be the default setting. I proposed the default distribution should be based on views. But the default setting could also be set by the community. This default distribution would also be used by the people who decide to favorize one project and give them 50% of their donation and leave the rest with the default distribution.

Also I believe it is crucial you can override the decision of this community. There will be bad decisions or decisions that you personally do not agree with. But because of that you should not give up on donations. You can simply pick your own, or blacklist one organization you do not agree with.

TLDR: We should make a browser extension where you assign points in what percentage projects get your predefined monthly donations.

So this will be a long text...

I have thought about this problem a lot. If we can have means to build necessary momentum I am all for that and would like to contribute.

I thought about it in a broader way. As to how to monetize content on the internet without ads (open source projects, creators, journalists), in a way we maximize collective good. It may be worth noting I was thinking it in terms of the new internet - Web 4.0 together with tools like ipfs, veilid, and new wave of web browsers (web 1.0 - protocols, 2.0 - platforms, 3.0 - crypto scams, 4.0 - something better, p2p, private...)

I placed highest focus on how to fairly monetize this web 4.0, since I believe the right monetization is the crucial point. If we put only donate our free time (max 2h a day) to projects things move slowly. But imagine what can be done if I am allowed to work 8 hours a day on eg. foss.

I have concluded that few things must have hold true:

1. Donator decides on who gets the money.
2. It must be very very very very simple to donate and to decide who gets the money.

I can propose one solution i am the most confident with. It would be a browser extension (or even better to be integrated in browsers by default).

1. First you set how much you would like to donate. (I played in my mind also with option to make some minimal donation - eg 1% of minimal salary in your country - may even be necessary as a subscription to internet content)

2. By default the sites (maybe preapproved sites good for community) get percentage of your donation proportional to your views.

3. You can explicitly set some (or all) sites to have higher percentage directly in from address bar by single click. Eg. I visit Linux webpage and I can click a button and set it to 20% of my donations. All the other donations then move proportionally to remaining 80%.

System based on (maybe even forced) donations changes whole behavior of monetization.

You start paying for what you believe in, and not for what you need.

And I believe this is the one of most important goals we can have. So people will have the highest incentive to work on stuff that makes the most good.

Also another note on forced donations: In Slovenia you can decide to put 1% of our taxes to non profit organizations. And this works.

If you read through that. Thank you! I believe my ideas have many flaws. So please comment and we can debate them.

Well they do have a DNA of a suspect. It may be enough to get court order of DNA extraction of a subject. And matching DNA is definitely enough to get someone behind bars.