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.

  • sorrybookbroke@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    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 memberstm can vote

    aye

    • Overzeetop@kbin.social
      1·
      1 year ago

      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!

  • DaveUK@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

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

  • this@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

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

  • nemo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • hoi_polloi@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

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

  • Derproid@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • 9999monkeys@sh.itjust.worksOPEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      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