TFA's point isn't that Discord shouldn't be monetized - it's that the monetization model is based on creating visible class differences.

A different monetization model is easily conceivable that gives paid users better functionality instead of (what the author calls) "aesthetic perks" that only serve to evoke class envy, as if like jewelry.

I don't have a strong position on the author's point. Just making sure the right thing is being discussed.

This is really interesting if you consider a different vertical, like competitive gaming.

The whole concept around that is that, monetizing "functionality" would be unfair (breaks balance), so the healthy strategy is actually monetize "aesthetics" (skins, effects etc.)

I also don't have a clear framework to judge this, but at least in my subjective opinion, I would much rather a platform be monetized via the creation of powerless "figurehead elites" through aesthetics, than to tax the commoner when actually doing something productive. If economic realities imply there must exist different castes of users, won't it be better if the difference is purely a social rather than practical construct?

What's the difference between functionality and aesthetic perks? Isn't the fact that one good is held by a group that is not you what evokes the envy? It doesn't matter if it's themes or if it's the ability to send larger messages. I find the distinction useless.

Straight from the article

> this post is mostly about the aesthetic perks. the things that cost discord exactly nothing

I presume the second sentence is shorthand for: no marginal cost for Discord, after the development is done.

So, two distinctions going on, which happen to be correlated:

1. Things that cost Discord extra resources (eg bandwidth/ storage space for larger uploads) vs things that don’t (extra emoji)

2. Things that allow you do more with Discord (upload large files with any type of content) vs things that allow you to express yourself more (use certain emoji)

The second distinction might not matter to everyone, but it certainly has a specific social component.

As noted in the post, Nitro users do get enhanced functionality for things like file upload sizes and streaming quality; I imagine that more intrusive better functionality than that would cause a much higher uproar than avatars or emoji, and given that this is a chat/voicechat/streaming app any functionality is necessarily going to be quite visible to other users.

Isn't the current model better? Is it not (objectively) better for free users if they get all the same functionality as premium users?

> A different monetization model is easily conceivable that gives paid users better functionality instead of (what the author calls) "aesthetic perks" that only serve to evoke class envy, as if like jewelry.

With a group of friends we subscribed to Nitro to boost our private server's capabilities, which we use almost every day so the "better functionality" is definitely there.

Quite tired of this particular author/blog on HN and their edgy take on everything.