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.
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?)