moderated Re: Samuel's Paid User Proposal #suggestion
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 01:18 PM, Shal Farley wrote:
context of this topic I think what you're saying is that you as a group member wouldn't use Samual's Paid User Proposal. That's ok, Samuel's proposal doesn't require it of you. Going back to Mark's original post in this topic, maybe some kind-hearted group owner will allocate you a subscription from the "free member slots" they've purchased (plan base fee plus add-on per-member fee).Since people are contacting me offlist now, I've been forced out from under my rock again and am going to answer: I don't see Samuel's proposal in any way equivalent to the Meetup situation or any other situation where only group owners are charged by the system. Even in Meetup (not that I'm putting Meetup out there as anything to emulate, but just as something that allowed me to feel what it would have hypothetically been like to have been charged by the platform, which would have been unacceptable) - even in Meetup, group members are not charged *by the system*. The system merely facilitates the group owner asking them for payment or donation. In Samuel's proposal members are charged by the system unless they manage to be comp'd in by the owner.
My sole objection is to group members being charged by the platform itself. I feel strongly that groups.io should only charge owners. It would be fine for groups.io to make things easier for group owners who want to pass that cost along to willing members, and it in fact is already doing that by allowing for donations. Perhaps that could be enhanced somehow. But that is a far cry from groups.io directly charging non-owner members.
Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones.