I mean this question is way too big for this sort of thread. I would say that simply calling it a “product” already reveals a certain ideological bias to begin with.
It’s like the difference between a city square and a shopping mall as a place for a society or community.
What is unique about this place is that many people here are more than qualified to build pretty much anything. So, it would be safe to assume that if we wanted something different, we would probably just build it.
Fair point and I do agree. I have no interest in pursuing anything in the space. I wanted to start a discussion on the topic because I don't know how to fix this obvious problem. If a solution could be found (or even a broad direction), this group of people... would a probable source.
Running a world-scale social network requires immense computing power. Those bills have to be paid, and there's not going to be much difference between "break-even-driven" and "profit-driven" at that scale.
Disclaimer: I'm taking care of finance at Mastodon
Appreciate Mastodon comes to mind here.
I disagree with the second part regarding product not being the right term. Take Mastodon as an example: Mastodon is a non-profit LLC and an FOSS software but its community as well as the LLC clearly _produce_ something users are using.
Because I’m not saying that it’s not a product. I’m saying that IMHO calling/thinking of something as a product upfront (as OP did) isn’t a good way to drive interest in it as a community.
You can post your HN related stuff hashtagged #hackernews and others might follow.
That being said - IMHO if you want a social network or community, don’t call it a “communal product”. Products are for making money and whatnot.