It's a noble and admirable vision but in my opinion, an NGO or non-profit initiative doesn’t stand much of a chance in competing with the popularity of major social networks. People, generally speaking, are motivated by money. Users expect free access to platforms, so monetization has to come from somewhere and advertising remains the only realistic option. Let’s be honest: most people aren’t truly bothered by ads, except for a very small and often insignificant percentage.

These socialist ideas are idyllic. I understand and respect the spirit behind them, but we also need to be realistic.

If you simply look around, you'll notice that only the activities backed by financial interest actually prosper. It's a kind of modern Darwinism natural selection determines who survives and thrives. And those who do succeed tend to be the ones who know how to manage and leverage capital. Any endeavor where money is the core driver tends to work. The rest often fade into obscurity.

That makes sense because money means food. Humans, just like any other species, work to eat. A monkey will fight for a banana. A person works for money. A lion protects its hunting territory. It's all about survival. That primal instinct is still at the core of our behavior, no matter how advanced we think we've become.

So, can a network without a profit model or capital backing truly compete with platforms that reinvest billions into user experience, marketing, AI, and infrastructure? Realistically only to a very limited extent. You will be able to cover a niche of interests.

I love the idea of user ownership, co-creation, open source collaboration, and digital democracy. But whether that’s enough to trigger a mass migration from dominant platforms is highly questionable. Users need strong, immediate, personal motivation to switch and most of the time, that motivation is driven by convenience, habit, popularity, and yes money.

That’s just my opinion but I do hope I’m proven wrong one day.

Dear Romulus,

Thank you for the interesting insight into your perspective. I absolutely agree with you on many points. As you describe in your comment, there are numerous major barriers that can prevent users of large social networks from switching to another platform. And yes, money is certainly a strong motivator for the funders and advertisers of the major market leaders. However, since we, as mentioned in my post, do not participate in this market, we use other sources of funding that corporations do not have access to, and thus the competition is not as fierce, such as grants for civil society organizations, donations, and membership fees. As a non-profit, we often have preferential terms with providers of the necessary technical infrastructure for operating our social community platform, which further reduces costs. By using open source technology such as the UNA CMS framework, we are able to finance our annual operating costs through membership fees that are affordable for everyone. Currently, with just 40 paying members, we can finance the infrastructure for approximately 500 to a maximum of 1,000 users. Of course, we need to grow organically, as we can only finance the technical infrastructure we actually need for the current number of members.

When we talk about user motivation, we also have to consider cultural differences. In capitalist countries, which I include European countries in, money is certainly a major factor. In Bhutan, a Buddhist country with only 1 million inhabitants, there is a Gross National Happiness index to assess the kingdom's well-being. Money is just one of many evaluation criteria here. In addition to New Zealand, the European countries of Iceland, Scotland, and Wales are also working on a Gross National Happiness index. According to the University of Oxford's World Happiness Report, Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden are the countries with the happiest inhabitants. No one would claim that this is solely due to economic success. In my country, Austria, with a population of approximately 9 million, the influx of non-profit organizations (125,000 organizations) remains unbroken, with 3.7 million participating in unpaid volunteer work. In Bavaria, the California of Germany, voluntary participation in traditional associations is also very high.

This shows me that shared values, born out of long traditions and a mature culture, can very well play a greater role than money. If the survival of a social media platform depends on a Darwinian selection process, then there's probably no room for more ad-financed network platforms. But if we look at the whole thing from the perspective of users, who, as pure consumers, have no monetary goals on a social network, then we can also bring Maslow's pyramid of human needs (graphic source: Wikipedia) into play. Active participation in a social network offers many opportunities to meet human needs at higher levels once basic individual needs have been met.

For us as a non-profit European social network, this means that we need to focus much more on the added value of our offerings for our target audience than large networks need to do to gain recognition. We implement this by placing the knowledge, skills, and collaboration needed to solve problems with the help of the community at the center of our social community platform and developing modules and additional features for this purpose.

"So, will new, small online media operators in Europe be able to displace the large social network operators?" Yes, obviously, as I was saying, it is possible, in certain niches, for these networks to survive, but obviously they will never be able to compete with the large social media platforms.

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response. I truly appreciate your openness and the vision you're working toward. It’s inspiring to see a real attempt at building something different something aligned with values beyond profit.

Indeed, there are always exceptions and positive examples, especially in places like the Nordic countries or Bhutan, where quality of life is measured by broader well-being metrics rather than just GDP. I also admire the volunteer culture in Austria and Bavaria, which speaks to a strong foundation of community and civic engagement. These examples are a testament to the fact that not everything is driven by money at least, not everywhere.

That said, we must also acknowledge the broader reality: not everyone in the world enjoys the financial standards of Austria or Northern Europe. The majority of the global population still struggles with poverty many live in precarious conditions, sometimes even facing hunger and a lack of basic resources. For people who are still fighting for survival, it's understandably much harder to reach higher levels of consciousness or self-actualization. In such circumstances, money is not just a motivator it becomes the only perceived way out of their situation, the one visible hope for a better life. And because of this, they are naturally drawn toward anything that promises even a glimpse of financial gain or stability.

Large tech corporations are acutely aware of this, and they’ve built their platforms accordingly. Many go beyond simply capturing attention they actively reward users for staying engaged. Platforms like TikTok or YouTube essentially transform users into workers. Content creators are paid to produce engaging material that keeps others glued to the platform. This gamified monetization creates a cycle of dependency users aren’t just entertained, they’re employed by the platform’s economy of attention, often with the hope of “making it big” or at least making ends meet.

This strategy, while efficient from a business standpoint, further deepens user retention and creates a major barrier for any new, non-commercial social platform trying to offer something different especially if that offering is centered around collaboration, co-creation, or shared values rather than immediate material reward.

We must also consider that most people, globally, still operate at the lower levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. They’re not searching for self-actualization they’re seeking safety, security, and belonging. And social media platforms give them just that, often mixed with validation, visibility, and sometimes even income. It’s a powerful combination.

That’s not to say change isn’t possible. But such a change would require a cultural shift, a redefinition of what “value” means in the digital space. While I don’t believe that shift will happen at scale in this generation, your work and the values you promote might very well be laying the groundwork for it. I respect that deeply.

These “socialist” or community-driven models might seem idyllic in the context of today’s hypercapitalist systems, but perhaps they are the seeds of tomorrow’s reality. Until then, the path is certainly uphill but no less worthy.

For humanity to evolve spiritually and reach the higher levels of Maslow's hierarchy, it must first resolve its basic issues especially poverty. Only when people are no longer constantly constrained by the harsh realities of survival will they have the time, freedom, and mental space to reflect on deeper values, personal growth, and spiritual fulfillment.

A real opportunity for this kind of transformation might come with the development of artificial intelligence. If robots are able to produce essential goods and cover the basic needs of the population, people will no longer be forced to work just to survive. In that case, money would cease to be the ultimate goal, and humans would begin to seek meaning in other ways through knowledge, exploration, art, culture, and volunteerism, etc.

We might even see a shift in the global economic system, where work becomes something people do out of passion, not necessity. That would truly mark the beginning of an era of NGOs and meaningful human collaboration. But for that to happen, every citizen would need to be guaranteed a basic income a citizen’s income that ensures a decent living simply because they are human.

Once this becomes reality, people will be free to pursue education, travel, culture, and community involvement. The world could change dramatically for the better. However, this vision still depends on how things will unfold globally in the coming years.

The challenge is that powerful actors still exist who are invested in maintaining control. They benefit from staying at the top of the pyramid while the masses struggle at the bottom and follow orders. This is why, despite having the tools and potential to build a better future, it’s unlikely that such a profound transformation will happen at scale in our current generation.

Romulus, thank you for your realistic assessment. I only just saw on your profile that you can assess things not only from the perspective of an investor, but also as an innovative entrepreneur, European, and software specialist. Many of your reflections on poverty, meeting basic human needs, and the resulting prerequisites for participation in social networks have accompanied us in our idea development since our founding in 2021.

As a consultant for business start-ups and startup coach, I never would have thought that I would one day swim completely against the tide with a project. But we have to try to rethink things when we observe that they are heading completely in the wrong direction.

Therefore, our approach to the solution is quite simple: we have to outperform the major social networks wherever they show their weaknesses.

That's why we decided to establish a non-profit association to operate our social community platform. Without their expensive advertising machines, the constant misuse of data, and optimized algorithms that decide for users what content they see, the business model of the major social media networks wouldn't work. If we had founded a company, we would find ourselves in the same predatory market as the major social media platforms, and Darwin would wipe us out of the market faster than we could say selection theory.

That's why we use UNA's open source CMS framework. No one can understand what happens to user data on Big Tech media. We may know the tip of the iceberg: profiling, tracking, targeting, retargeting, etc. But is that really all there is to it? No, AI models are also trained with user content, with complete disregard for copyrights. Therefore, we don't put advertisers and investors at the center of our social network, but rather the benefit for our members.

Yes, our platform is a niche product. But it has a specific goal. Our vision is to be successful together and for everyone to contribute to the path to shared success. Those who get involved, co-finance, and contribute to achieving our goals should also be the ones who benefit from the platform. Our currency is not personal user data but individual knowledge and skills that artificial intelligence cannot imitate. It's a community thing. And AI tends to be very selfish.

Can the general public benefit from this? Will we perhaps even be able to solve societal challenges with it? We are absolutely convinced of this.

I would also like to point out that we are growing in number every day and joining forces for a fairer digital world. https://euro-stackletter.eu/