you cannot allow (a) free users (b) who can upload content
Remind us again how you are building something like Lemmy, which allows free users to upload content?
you cannot allow (a) free users (b) who can upload content
Remind us again how you are building something like Lemmy, which allows free users to upload content?
rezz@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Not “like” Lemmy, FWIW. Lemmy already allows for permissioned users and those servers can still be federated with something like Lemmy World.
If you wanted to do it quick and dirty, you could have a permissioned Lemmy (like other closed Lemmy servers) whereby the permission was say, pay-as-you-go with a Stripe portal. I pay $50 for a year to be a user.
On the other side, this user does not have permission to post content/links (this is also a feature, whereby a community creator can allow only mods to post content).
Creator-permissioned accounts (ones that can start communities and post) are white-listed effectively by the server operators.
It is with these users that the $50 is shared after server costs are considered.
These users can do the default which is content is posted and closed on the instance. But an “open” community could effectively be the place for free content, and those “freemium” links would be shareable with federated servers more easily.
The real trick is: can you implement it such that I could pay for this server as a user of Lemmy World and not have to create a new account. That’s the hardest part of federated, subscription Lemmy-as-YouTube.