the kind of opinions i see about cohost from outside of cohost just baffle me, sometimes. i can't believe people would put the staff on blast for... being human? not corpo do-or-die work drones? for daring to put little jokes in the financial update (because the target audience for those is not shareholders or the corporate board, it is people like us)?
if the staff are to be criticized for anything, it sure as hell isn't that.
- people want websites that can't be taken over by billionaires but also refuse to admit that websites are made by people like them, that those people aren't overpaid engineers working for a company whose sole source of revenue is a predatory ad business.
- people want websites that can't be taken over by billionaires but refuse to accept that anything when a website is young/not bankrolled to the tunes of millions is a choice, sometimes a life/death one.
- people want websites that can't be taken over by billionaires but will go insane if said websites don't cater to their exact needs and their "why don't you just do X?", as if shit was just that easy.
Anyway like @wxcafe said
financially sustainable projects is when the people running the projects are invisible to me, the user. it can be a big corporation pays them or they're not getting paid, as long as i don't have to see or think about them. that's what sustainability is
there's also a broader thing in here about how corporate social media and, by extension, capitalism turned us against each other and leads us to automatically assume the worst in people. so the small venture led by 4 people is more scrutinized and vilified than Mark Zuckerberg's plan to make a "saner Twitter" / Jack Dorsey's Twitter 2: No Moderation Mode but that's another discussion
