my underdeveloped opinion on cohost (which likely comes from having not read the manifesto) is that I don't fully understand the ideology that is ruling out volunteer work. it seems contradictory to the fact that we post as volunteers. the entire css crimes community was volunteers, and in doing so we got cohost on The Verge. that helped cohost. what is stopping it from accepting our help in a larger capacity?
based on my experience over the last four months running a hackerspace, it's become clear that people want to see a good thing thrive. and that means being flexible, having trust, and asking for help when you need it.
it seems that the major difference though is that my hackerspace is a non-profit, but cohost is a cooperative. perhaps the ideological problem is that a for-profit company should never take labour for free. that's commendable, but the fact of the matter is that the world needs cohost. it seems like a good chunk of our members came from cohost and from that we are incredibly close to being financially sustainable ourselves. YOUR success is OUR success.
if cohost weathers this storm through volunteer labour, then all we ask is you pay it forward. if cohost doesn't survive, then nothing more good can come from it.
EDIT: I don't write this to demand that cohost goes open source or w/e. what I'm trying to say is the entire community understands if the ideology is bent a bit to make this great thing thrive.
I subscribe to Cohost Plus (if you don't, I implore that you consider it). I view the primary product I buy here to be "a marginal improvement on Cohost's chances of continuing to exist," with the actual Cohost Plus features being a nice perk.
From that perspective, I think I'd be happy to 'buy' shares in this 'Cohost ontological equity' with labor. If Cohost was not, on the margin, at risk of no longer existing I think that calculus would be very different. But it doesn't feel like a bigger or worse stretch to me than, say, user-generated ads.
