The quiet death of Ello's big dreams

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Ello, a once-promising ad‑free social network that branded itself as a public benefit corporation, is used as a case study for why values‑driven platforms so often collapse or “sell out” once venture capital is involved. Commenters argue that the core problem isn’t just bad intent but structural: social networks are expensive to run, hard to monetize ethically, and growth‑at‑all‑costs funding models eventually force compromises that betray early ideals. Many see decentralized, federated or subscription‑based alternatives as more sustainable, but acknowledge these tend to grow slowly, remain niche, and still face governance and longevity challenges.

Ello’s Trajectory and VC Funding

  • Many see Ello as another example of VC money undermining idealistic products: once you take funding, growth and monetization pressure dominate any manifesto.
  • Others argue Ello was likely non-viable regardless: hard social bootstrapping, weak business model, and low revenue; VC just extended the runway.
  • Several comments stress that taking equity funding effectively sells eventual control, making “values-first” promises hard to keep when money is at stake.
  • A minority counters that funding itself isn’t inherently bad if founders retain control, share goals with investors, and have a realistic path to profit.

Business Models for Social Networks

  • Strong skepticism that ad-funded, free-to-use social networks can avoid “enshittification”: once user growth plateaus, monetization increasingly harms users.
  • Suggestions include subscriptions, donations, community-wide tiers, and transparent “income bars,” but people note these are stressful and hard to scale.
  • Some argue social networking may simply be a bad standalone business: expensive to run, everyone wants it, few want to pay.
  • Others point to federated/self-hosted models (Mastodon, small forums) and lifestyle businesses as workable at smaller scales.

PBCs, Nonprofits, and Governance

  • Discussion of Public Benefit Corporations concludes they’re still for-profit with shareholders; “public benefit” only slightly tweaks fiduciary duty.
  • Enforcement of benefit charters is unclear; in practice, users should not rely on PBC status or manifestos for protection.
  • Nonprofits and protocol-based systems (e.g., email, RSS, ActivityPub) are cited as more structurally resilient, though still vulnerable to “day-to-day corruption.”

Decentralization, Fediverse, and Alternatives

  • Several see the Fediverse as structurally more durable: independently hosted servers, open protocols, and the ability to fork or migrate.
  • Decentralized networks face the same “people problem” as centralized ones: without critical mass and usability, they remain niche.
  • Some think Mastodon et al. are slowly building a stable base that doesn’t need to “win” in a VC sense to survive.

User Data, Trust, and Ephemerality

  • Loss of Ello content without notice reinforces warnings: never fully trust third-party platforms with memories or critical data.
  • Posters advocate regular backups, self-hosting when possible, and having a “plan B” for both individuals and organizations.