I have seen many a democratic initiative ruined by trolls, bot accounts, duplicate accounts, and assholes. The best way to ensure that democracy doesn’t spiral into Haiti is to allow only financial contributors of $5 or more to vote (once the boss man has his contributions system up and running). You want to help build this community? OK, then put your money where your mouth is. To be clear, it should still be one vote per person, whether you donate $5 or $500.
“Thank you for the respectful and meaningful responce. though I disagree I’m glad to have the conversation”
Name of the game, my friend. Screeching at each other is old hat, we’re about productive discussions and community-building these days.
Edit: Jesus Christ, sorry for the novel here folks. Didn’t realize how long this was
I do understand your concerns re: monetary influence, but in terms of it not being a trolling deterrent/being means of exercising power to the detriment of the instance writ large, I disagree. If there’s counterpoints to the stuff below, sincerely let me know, I’m here to listen. I could be wildly offbase, I’m just your average internet enjoyer.
To my understanding, your average troll engages based on both incentive AND opportunity. There are ‘power trolls’ for sure, but in general even small barriers can narrow down the bad actors you have to deal with. Let’s say someone invests $100 and multiple accounts. You still need to contend with your $5 voters - given the tenor of this place so far, I can’t imagine power trolls would have more influence than the wider community*. Additionally, I find it difficult to believe that such an entity wouldn’t eventually do something that results in a ban, if they’re operating in bad faith generally. You get banned, your money is gone - no refunds, go fuck yourself. Want to try again? Pony up. Your average troll, at a certain point, will determine that the cost-benefit ratio isn’t worth it when there are other instances/places on the net they can cause more disruption for less.
That said, even while I think this is something that could protect against bad actors, you’re right that there are other means of determing who should have a voice (see: instance members of good standing) beyond whether they donated or not. Further, these are things that should be established EVEN IF donation is a factor (basic shit - how long have you been here? No evidence of fuckery? Maybe require an email for verification on top of membership to this instance <which is another voting point here>, etc.). Just something to signal investment in the instance’s community.
I’m happy for folks to try everything else before having donation be a qualifying factor for voting rights, but I do feel it shouldn’t be taken off the table entirely. Direct democracy without checks and balances has typically failed to provide good outcomes.
*The other factor here is how interested in voting for community standards your average user will even be. Ex: I used reddit for years. So long as I was able to interact with the site using the client of my choosing and could engaging meaningfully with the content, I didn’t give a crap about larger concerns of governance. When decisions were made that I didn’t like, I voted with my feet. I do wonder about what the ratio of folks with an actual interest in meta concerns like instance governance will be v. people who just want to talk about rom hacks on patientgamers.
(Now, of course, I find myself VERY interested, to the point of joining a local, membership-based, non-profit ISP that’s been around since before the BBS days to see how they deal with these things. None of this is new.)