Look for Signage Displays. They’re basically TVs with different software.

It sounds like you’re thinking there is no way to compete with Reddit. If you charge, people will use Reddit. If you have ads, people will use Reddit. People are only here because there aren’t ads and it’s free?

If you charge, you also have to offer a better experience than the free options. There’s no reason instances can’t use ads for people unwilling or unable to pay. For me I’ll gladly pay for an ad-free experience.

That’s not really how it works. If it was made to work that way, it would still be a relatively small group donating their own compute resources to subsidize everyone else. Which is what we already have, and isn’t very scalable.

The only real option is to charge people.
Hosting isn’t free. It costs money to run a website. That money needs to come from somewhere. If it doesn’t come from advertisers, it must come from users.

There could be a verity options for that. But I like the simple annual subscription. Each and every user pays. Spread out the cost as much as possible. It’s only fair.

Of course if one truly can’t afford it, paying for search can seem a luxury.

However I would argue as a counterpoint; If there’s any online service one would consider paying for, it should be search. Search is most literally our “front page to the internet”. It’s our first stop in any quest for information. Even the founders of Google knew early on, that putting adds in search creates a perverse incentive against the best results, favoring instead worse results, so people perform more searches, creating more opportunities to show people adds.

$5 a month isn’t much to know your query will give the results you want, instead of the results advertisers want.

Haven’t been able to find a copy of Big Shark by Tommy Wiseau.

Do you mean Reddit the company, or the Reddit the community?

I think the answers are “No”, and “A little. It often gets deleted when mentioned.”

I am familiar, and I’m still wondering that.
Seemed kind of obviously inevitable to me

Part of me hates myself for asking this. You clearly put a lot of effort into this.

Why? There are at least a couple actual blogging options with ActivityPub support. Why try to force Lemmy into something it isn’t.

Should we tell her there’ll be another Pope, or is it funnier to let her keep believing?

Yes the idea isn’t, that they aren’t allowed to recommend anything. It’s that they can be held accountable (I.E. sued) if what they recommend, leads to people being radicalized by a hate group, or attempting suicide from cyber bullying. Or even just extra tharapy from doom scrolling ourselves to sleep. Right now Section 230 says they can’t be held liable for anything on their sites. Which is obviously stupid.

Those were my edits, they didn’t use both

On one hand the Judge is right. On the other hand the lawyer is right. Then on two more hands, they’re both wrong.

Yes, it’s bad to legislate by moral panic. Yes, kids are addicted to social media. Those are both facts.

The reason age gating is a bad idea isn’t because of moral panic, or “the children”. It’s because we’re ALL addicted to social media. It isn’t just the kids, it’s adults as well. The problem is the intentionally addicting algorithms, meticulously engendered to keep us scrolling. I’m telling you in 50 years, we’ll know how all the social media companies were hiding and lying, about the addictive harmful nature of their business; Just like we know about tobacco and oil companies today.

The best solution I can think of, is to revisit Section 230. You can’t hold these companies responsible for what people post to their sites, but we can and must hold them accountable, for what they recommend! If you have a simple easily definable sorting or ranking system of what people choose to follow? You’re fine, no accountability for something bad showing up. If you have some black box algorithm of infinite scrolling, based on a complex criteria that nobody can really break down and explain exactly why a specific post was shown to a specific individual? Now you’re on the hook for what they see.

Judge Uses D&D’s Failure To Make Him Worship Satan, To School Teach Florida On About Social Media Moral Panics.

I think that’s what they’re trying to say

That’s what the local feed is for.
I’m constantly surprised by people who don’t seem to understand what ALL means.

You’re speculating that Kagi is actually astroturfing on Lemmy. That’s why I asked for an account you believe to be doing it on Kagi’s behalf.

So yah, the social media manager or marketing agency is getting paid. People organically posting because they genuinely like the service, aren’t. The former would be advertising. The later not.

Can you point to any accounts you think are doing Kagi astroturfing. IE being paid to advertise with. Because now it just sounds like you’re speculating.

If they aren’t paying anyone is it advertising? I’m not sure what you’re actually talking about anymore. Maybe I never did

Should I ask them about being paid? I’ve been doing it for free all this time.