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.
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 ownerspaying memberstm can voteaye
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
As it stands, you could just create another account for $0 rather than paying for their vote. In fact, you could create a whole lot of them.
That’s a good point. There are other solutions though that are less destructive. We could have timed verification, “karma” limits, lock it behind an application, only select participants, or only community mods which would lower the amount of false voters. Non of these are perfect, but neither is the donation gate.
To echo myself in another comment:
There are countless ways to trick that system and the trolls will be more dedicated than the average user. If someone really wants it a hundred bucks isn’t that hard to get, or to “find”. Especially if crypto is an option. If it’s 5 bucks to vote permanently, then that’s 5 bucks per vote, permanently. A person with more money and more accounts will have outsized power in this community.
[this] selects a specific type of person too. As a dev, I understand how rare it is for a person to move into a paying role on a site.
This minority of the instances population on an already small group will be those who most want power, not the most invested. That’s what 5 dollars gets you. Power. This is a poor idea.
I understand your concern, but I disagree with the direction you’d take it. Only allowing paid users to vote creates a power inbalance and makes the more power hungry much more powerful, without really stopping them from making more accounts. Sure, it costs them more, but there will be much less competition to overcome.
I want to be clear that I wasn’t necessarily arguing for some type of paid option. Just that what we have now also isn’t democracy.
Either would be a democracy, definitionally, though both are imperfect. I’d agree something needs to be done to fix the imperfections where possible
Idk man, $5 once, for voting rights for as long as you participate?
I get your point, but it’s a pretty quick filter for trolls. Few are tossing five bucks for the privilege of fucking shit up when they can do that other places for free.
I’m not casting my vote yet as there are other means of gauging someone as an actor deserving* of voting rights in an instance (account membership, length of membership, x period of not being a shithead/having mod actions performed, etc.) that haven’t been fleshed out here, but if that is too difficult or fraught to be effective I will support a small fee for voting rights (while fighting tooth and nail against making this a pay-only instance afterwards).
*‘Deserving’ may raise some hackles, but keep in mind this isn’t a country in a real sense. Instance migration is a trivial action. If you feel you’re disenfranchised in some way by whatever vetting for voting rights we land on, pick another instance or spin your own.
I’d disagree that this is a reasonable solution, or that this will stop trolls. There are countless ways to trick that system and the trolls will be more dedicated than the average user. If someone really wants it a hundred bucks isn’t that hard to get, or to “find”. Especially if crypto is an option. If it’s 5 bucks to vote permanently, then that’s 5 bucks per vote, permanently. A person with more money and more accounts will have outsized power in this community.
You are right, there are other ways to validate. Moderators checking up on the posting history of random voters at reasonable intervals is one I’d like to see, and volunteer to do. I’d see any other, email validation, request form, specific user validation, active time, etc. before I’d lock it behind a monetary incentive. That only locks out people who can’t afford democracy, or justify the purchase. It selects a specific type of person too. As a dev, I understand how rare it is for a person to move into a paying role on a site.
This minority of the instances population on an already small group will be those who most want power, not the most invested. That’s what 5 dollars gets you. Power. This is a poor idea.
Thank you for the respectful and meaningful responce. though I disagree I’m glad to have the conversation
“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 engage 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.)
Ha, you think that’s a novel, try this on for size.
To respond to your first point, I’d agree this would likely stop some trolls but those with such a low standard wouldn’t likely be that much of a concern once banned once or twice. The power trolls are the real concern, the ones who will do lasting damage, and the ones more than willing to “find” $100. Power trolls are more common than you think, kiwi farms has alot of people using it even after their anti-DDOS service got taken away. Look at 4chan too, they can be absurdly dedicated and have quite a few participants when they do a troll campaign.
For your second though, a ban is against one account. With $100 over a good amount of time, that’s 20 accounts. You won’t get them all, it’s impossible to sort between alts and people who simply agree. Also, to reiterate but more clearly, that $100 doesn’t have to be theirs. You can buy credit cards, visa cards, and crypto wallets for cheap and they’re not exactly hard to find, or to steal yourself. 5 people, $25, can swing the vote easily. Especially with a smaller voting pool.
to go off on a tangent:
To prime my next point more so than to respond directly, Alot of damage can be done too while keeping it, mostly, clean. “Games journalism is in the gutter”, “look at IGN scores, they’re meaningless”, “You can’t trust anyone at major publications for their opinions if they’re all paid by these companies” to name some reasonable takes, primes the discussion for: “and look, this ‘woman’ had sex with a reviewer to get a better score”. (a fiction) “This girl is attempting to kill the game industry”, “(((they))) are using race to destroy your favorite games, the addition of blacks into this series is woke culture gone mad. Look at this girl, she has connections to blizzard. Look and this black character. Coincidence?” All real examples, directed at real people, but the point of the rest was to prime for their target. In those examples, small indie game devs who happened to be women, gay, or black were harmed.
There are 15 unique "aye"s in this group, it’ll take 16 accounts to change the tides permanently. What happens when the question is “should we allow gamer-gate content” or another, more sinister group. Nazism is getting more and more frequent. What happens when the accounts are just for the voting, not the spread of hate? Will they get banned? not likely.
All that is still a problem under other, non monetized systems but I’d like to re-iterate another point.
This makes power five dollars. My concern is that this filters out most of the common users and allows in only the most power hungry. People online are extremely unlikely to pay 5 dollars for a service they love to use. We’re talking 5% of active users being an amazing turnover. What’s it going to look like when we sort out from the 17 accounts who voted today those willing to send money? I will not not be one of them. This doesn’t mean that only the most dedicated users get in, this simply means that those willing to spend money for power will have said power. This selects for the power hungry, and does nothing to stop the dedicated trolls who will slowly erode what they can towards their goal.
The other methods will help with these trolls, even the more dedicated, but selecting for willingness to pay does, in my opionion, nothing to stop the real damage. It would stop the most blatant but as I’ve stated those are the most likely to get banned and stop. Our current system does nothing too but I would like to see this improve. As you’ve stated, direct demovracy without guard rails fails. We’ve tried democracy for only those willing to pay before too, and we see similarly terrible outcomes. As for my comment on
True democracy. Only
land ownerspaying members tm can voteeven with a perfect outcome, no trolls come in due to the pay gate, the people voting will be selected for the most power hungry. I do think this should be off the table. I cannot see the people willing to pay for power being a good selection of the population to decide how it’s run.
Luckily, lemmy allows users to decide their moseration. If we see this come into being, I will leave this instance, and lose very little. Our feet have a lot more power here my friend.
So, it’s a novel fight you’re after eh!? (Just kidding, this will probably be much shorter. Edit: Narrator: It wasn’t)
These are all very good points, and for the record it’s with our discussion in mind I cast my vote for nay with some reservations.
At the end of the day, what I’m after is some proof of investment in the community for voting rights. I agree that a paywall alone for enfranchisement is, at best, insufficient, and at worst can create a scenario like you describe here. Perhaps I very much am underestimating the capabilities of power trolls (particularly as things grow in scope).
Donation in tandem with other markers, though, can signal enhanced commitment to the instance. I’m going to be donating (@TheDude - even more if you can make a ‘sh.it.head’ t-shirt via CafePress or something happen!), though all that really says is I want to toss the instance admins a couple of bucks, admittedly nothing about my intentions or character. But doing that, and buying the tshirt, and posting often, and having conversations like the one we’re having now, I hope would signal that I am indeed commited to this little experiment.
Re: dismal conversion rates for digital products/services with a ‘free’ option - you’re not wrong. But there’s another angle to this which I’ll mention not because it’s directly relevant to this discussion here but a broader consideration: if we’re really going to embrace decentralized, user-focused and enthusiast-supported platforms, at a certain level people are going to need to move away from this “I want it to be free as in beer” mentality. This will be, to understate it, difficult. Internet users have been inculcated to expect free-as-in-beer services in exchange for their personal information being bartered for so long that it’s now the standard MO of most popular services. But that’s not what is happening here. Electricity and costs for server upkeep exist, and while sh.itjust.works seems well positioned from a resource perspective it’s all currently based on these not being a burden to TheDude. At some stage, if you want nice stuff to still be there, you gotta chip in. If you can’t, you can still participate, but someone’s gotta foot the bill, and we can’t rely on that being TheDude (or any admin) forever.
Giving some perks to encourage donation, including it being a factor re: rights to enfranchisement, could help keep the corporate shitheads away. “Naw, we the users are keeping it afloat, we don’t need your enshitification payout”. Edit: But, in keeping with my ‘Nay’ vote, let’s try some other stuff first re: ability to vote, particularly while overhead isn’t a pressing concern.
Edit: I think I may have reported your comment? I saw the "report submitted dialog twice while writting, I hope that was a client side error. I made no such report.
I can agree with the fact that we need money to continue this platform, and as long as voting remains free and I can do so without tying anything to my account or my person I will be donating (anonymously) too. My problem is with the quality of those willing to pay for power in this community. I see cosmetics in exchange for money as a better solution. I’m a developer, and will start to contribute to the project soon. If this is wanted, I can start to do the work needed to allow for cosmetic purchases. I’ve done similar work for other services before though never FOSS projects. Say, coloured names, gif banners, user flairs, or icons. Power in a community should not be a perk available to pay for. Money for power will not be beneficial to the long term survival of a platform.
I understand your position is to not dismiss money being involved, but not to try this yet. I do disagree but I’m glad someones making the argument. It looks like the only “aye” was me, which was of course entirely serious. Descent is needed.
For now there doesn’t seem to be much issue. If, and when, more restrictions are needed my personal preference would be for those voting to be selected, or to apply. This will, of course, be less open.
My point is that money being a factor limits the amount of dedicated people involved, selects more towards the people willing to exchange money for power, and doesn’t stop the more dangerous bad actors.
No worries, hopefully it’s just a bug and if not, I imagine it will be seen as the mistake it was.
I think we’ll need to agree to disagree on the donation component, and that’s totally fine (though I think we do meet in the middle in that it should not be the deciding factor, and I’m happy to discard donation as a factor at all for at least the time being). Agreed that dissenting opinions are part of a healthy debate.
Good discussion!
Edit to add: If you’re taking requests I’d like flair that says ‘sh.it.head’ with old-school HTML ‘blink’ tag behaviour, please :) (j/k - unless?)
deleted by creator
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!
Nay, paywalled democracy isn’t democracy.
I agree but I’d like to play a bit of devil’s advocate here:
Real democracy, to me, means one vote per person. There is absolutely no checking that every person is only able to vote once in this system.
So, while paywalled democracy isn’t democracy, neither is how this site runs now and is likely to run in the future.
deleted by creator
As long as The Dude states that donating is entirely optional, “forcing” it by other means seems dishonest. Nay.
Nay.
Absolutely F’ing not. Never let so much as a penny be involved in selecting who can and can not vote.
Nay. Let’s not paywall this
Nay
Nay
Nay.
Building the community requires participation, not a test of your financial means.
Nay
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.
I thought the captcha was supposed to make automatically created accounts much harder. Do you have a way past that?
From my experience with AI, so far, just checking that you understand the concept of now and how it relates to past and future dates would be a good test.
Yeah, the implementation won’t be easy or perfect, but we should still aim to make it better.
Captcha solving services exist. At worse you’re essentially paying low wage workers to solve captcha for you. There are some AI image processing that can solve some captcha but their accuracy can vary.
In the end it boils down to making the cost as high as possible for spammers and also reducing the benefit of having a spam account by rapidly detecting and removing them.
It’s a hard problem to solve even for companies with massive resources.
Yeah! Give all the decision-making to the rich! That has always worked out well.
Nay
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
Nay
