Yeah no average person cares about the difference between proprietary and free (as in freedom). If it does a thing, they'll use it. If it does a thing extremely poorly, but it's marketed well, they'll use it. If it does a thing, and they get censored continually, they'll use it. If it does a thing, but only via one method (you can't do it your way), they'll use it. If it does a thing while spying on their data, they'll use it. If it does a thing while showing them ads every 5 minutes, they'll use it.
Normal people take such a beating, and just keep on trucking. It's truly fascinating.
Not OP but I'm saying yes. I don't see people paying for hosting. Mastodon instances already have to beg for donations to keep up. There are no ads, no sponsored posts etc. so users have to donate. Most people won't pay for a services like this just like how most people don't pay for Discord, Reddit, or Instagram.
They generally require more time and effort investment, and they don't ultimately offer what most people want from social media. #1 of which is to be where everyone else is; there's a very strong "winner takes all" effect. The only reason different networks exist is different enough policies and culture, despite their desire to turn into one another by copying each other's features.
Normal people take such a beating, and just keep on trucking. It's truly fascinating.