2y ago

Only donors should be allowed to vote.

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.

29 comments

Fantastic idea, money being involved in democracy has always worked out to benefit the average person.
Fuck the poors, they should have no voice in our community. What, you can't afford the price of a cup-a-coffee? Begon.
First vote afterwards? This is now a paid instance. I don't even want to see those plebs.
True democracy. Only ~~land owners~~ paying members^tm can vote
aye
- Your vote will count as an approval even if you were clearly sarcastic.
  
  I'll pay you twelve dollars for the rights to your vote
- I would like to add a second level of financial support to allow downvotes, say $10, an invisible downvote for $20, and a special Gold Star vote that you can buy individually which is also worth ten upvotes. Of course, if we implement Gold Stars I would like a FullOfShit award as well and a SilentButDeadly award which isn't shown but resets the counter to -1 any time the vote would otherwise go positive.
  Let make kbin a place just like the real world - where money buys influence!

Yeah! Give all the decision-making to the rich! That has always worked out well.

Nay - no paywalls. This server should survive because its a nice place, not because people pay money to have a day in its operation.

Nay, I feel there has to be some better way to go about it than paywalling it. Maybe based on account age and contribution.

Nay
Also wtf
The best way to ensure that democracy doesn’t spiral into Haiti

Nay...optional donate to vote. I will be donating, but not everyone who deserves a vote will necessarily be.

Nay, this idea is fundamentally against the values of this instance.

Nay.
I agree duplicate accounts can and will be an issue, but I believe that donor-only voting is not the answer.
Although, if someone gives me a substantial donation, I might be convinced otherwise... /s

As long as The Dude states that donating is entirely optional, "forcing" it by other means seems dishonest. Nay.

Nay
If we don't care about everyone having a chance to vote, then let's just pick 25 users that have been active in the last week, at random and pass things 14 of them support.

Nay, but I also get where you are coming from. Maybe alternatively have it be based on contributions? Like having at least x comments over the past y weeks. That way you only need to be an active member of the community.
- yes, definitely. account age and activity are alternatives. but those can very easily be faked in larger communities. the only thing that shuts the trolls and bots down 100% is a fee. but everyone is unanimously voting against, i hope history proves me wrong

Nay, This essentially turns this instance into an oligarchy. I don't think other instances are going to appreciate this type of governance either.
Also, nothing stops trolls and bad actors from donating the bare minimum a thousand times to get a thousand voices. This would mean a high minimum investment should be required, which further hurts the common user.
I believe that a shitty/troll opinion has an artificial majority, the real users will catch on and act accordingly, however we still have to see an example of this.
I'm also certain that privacy people would rather not risk money transfers, cash or whatever (crypto is a whole other discussion).
In short, I think requiring payment, or proof of identity, or any other de-anonymizing measures would hurt discussion by excluding genuine users, even if it allows more trolls that would be ignored/dealt with by genuine users.

Nay, paywalled democracy isn't democracy.

Nay
I don't want to associate my account with my money, and enforcing this would require that. I prefer to donate anonymously.

It's an interesting idea.
If you're going to have a place that is ran by votes, you need a method of ensuring that each person voting is a distinct person and not the 5th alt of a person trying to push a specific result. Donations create a trail between an account and a specific person.
On the other hand, I firmly believe that anonymity is an important factor in freedom of speech. The de-anonymization of the Internet has caused a lot of problems with social media.
I'd say Nay for now, but the idea of having a system to enforce 'One Person, One Vote' is a good one. But maybe money/real ID isn't it.
- With a robust voting population, having 5 alts is not sufficient to affect the outcome anyway.
  
  True, 5 wouldn't do anything, but I can write a Python script in a few minutes that would keep creating alts as fast as the server would allow for weeks. Hundreds of thousands of users. Then I can single-handedly affect the outcome of any poll.
  It wouldn't take too much more automation to have them generate realistic looking comments using AI so they appear to be active users. Actually, how can you tell that I'm a real person? Maybe I'm a bot that can produce realistic looking conversation. :P
  Electronic voting is a difficult thing to do in a way that is secure and accurate. I do think the idea of having a say in how the server works is a great idea. But it's one that is tricky to implement correctly.

29 comments