4 ms·

> How do you prevent mob rule while maintaining democracy? You don't. Look at California's direct democracy, allowing voters to put propositions on the ballot

by p_ing 1y ago

> How do you prevent mob rule while maintaining democracy? You don't. Look at California's direct democracy, allowing voters to put propositions on the ballot that alter the State Constitution. (That's not really "mob rule" but it can lead to all sorts of interesting consequences) > Should all voices be equal, or should expertise/contribution matter? So if you're not an expert, your vote only counts for 3/5ths of a vote? > How do you handle spam/quality without authoritarian moderation? Stupid people are allowed to vote.

ff12wq111 1y ago
Fair points. The California example is perfect - Prop 13 is still shaping the state decades later, for better or worse. You're right that any system where votes have different weights gets into dangerous territory fast. I wasn't thinking "expert votes count more" but more like "earned influence through contribution" - though I admit that's a fine line.
ff12wq111 1y ago
The "stupid people vote" point is brutally honest and probably true. But even in traditional politics, we accept that trade-off for legitimacy. I guess I'm wondering if online communities need the same legitimacy, or if they can try different experiments. What do you think - are online communities fundamentally different from political systems, or subject to the same constraints?
- p_ing 1y ago
  Unless the community is a political one, it is fundamentally different operating by different social rules and standards.
  - ff12wq111 1y ago
    That's a really interesting distinction. You're right that tech communities operate under different social contracts than political ones. I'm curious what you think those different "social rules and standards" should be? Like, in a political system, we accept inefficiency for legitimacy. Do you think a proposal system where voting power is earned through contribution would create fundamentally different dynamics than traditional political voting? Would that change the types of decisions that get made?
  - psychoslave 1y ago
    How something operating under any set of social rules and standard be supposed to be void of political beliefs and consequences? Look at where they tell "we don't make politics here" and see where the political power is actually being enforced at its outmost practical level. Some people seem to think that going to toilet is not political, ignoring the fact that having the underlying infrastructure to have toilets require a while city and political organization to keep it operational.
4b6442477b1280b 1y ago
>Stupid people are allowed to vote. ironic to say that here, where supposedly smart people say the dumbest, cringiest shit imaginable about a wide variety of topics.
- moomoo11 1y ago
  Well. Have you seen the news recently?
  - ff12wq111 1y ago
    you mean paywall in reddit?
- ff12wq111 1y ago
  Exactly. Intelligence and good judgment seem to be very different things.I've seen brilliant engineers make terrible community decisions - sometimes because they're optimizing for profit or ego rather than community benefit. Maybe the real question isn't who's smart enough to participate, but how to design transparent decision-making systems regardless of external factors.
- burnt-resistor 1y ago
  Of one part, those who thrive in corporations must appear to drink the Flavor Aid. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair And then another part is the professional working class of privileged, moderately-to-highly educated, and brimming with ego without nuance or ambiguity while skewing to the tendencies of less wisdom, struggle, and wide-ranging life experience. There isn't much internal or external motivation towards integrity, self-improvement, or commonwealth investment. There are exceptions and they are gold.
bruce511 1y ago
I think this point is completely fair and correct, if we consider democracy to be one person one vote. Given that definition, "mob rule" is not something to be prevented, but encouraged. You may prefer some other system, and in many cases another system will likely lead to better outcomes, but that system is not Democracy. To the original poster I say, you've spotted the root flaw in democracy. It does indeed allow everyone to vote, and many remain ignorant of the implications of what they are voting for, or are susceptible to manipulation. You may attempt to fix these attributes in individual people (good luck with that) or you may thought-consider a system that is not democracy. What you can't do is change the system and call it democracy.
- ff12wq111 1y ago
  You're absolutely right about the definitional clarity - I appreciate that precision. Actually, what we're experimenting with in GistFans tries to bridge this gap. We have a hybrid system: everyone gets basic voting rights (maintaining the democratic principle you describe), but we also have weighted "contribution votes" based on earned influence. So it's not replacing democracy, but adding a parallel track. Basic decisions use equal votes, but for governance and quality decisions, contribution-based weight provides additional input. Think of it as "democracy plus meritocracy" rather than replacing one with the other. But we believe: hybrid democracy is also democracy. Just as representative democracy and direct democracy are both legitimate forms of democratic governance, contribution-weighted democracy can preserve democratic legitimacy while addressing practical concerns about informed participation. This way we preserve the fundamental democratic principle you're defending - everyone has a voice - while creating mechanisms for those most invested in outcomes to have proportional influence. Do you think this hybrid approach maintains democratic legitimacy while addressing some of the practical concerns about informed decision-making?

by p_ing 1y ago

ff12wq111 1y ago

Fair points. The California example is perfect - Prop 13 is still shaping the state decades later, for better or worse. You're right that any system where votes have different weights gets into dangerous territory fast. I wasn't thinking "expert votes count more" but more like "earned influence through contribution" - though I admit that's a fine line.

ff12wq111 1y ago

The "stupid people vote" point is brutally honest and probably true. But even in traditional politics, we accept that trade-off for legitimacy. I guess I'm wondering if online communities need the same legitimacy, or if they can try different experiments. What do you think - are online communities fundamentally different from political systems, or subject to the same constraints?

p_ing 1y ago
Unless the community is a political one, it is fundamentally different operating by different social rules and standards.
- ff12wq111 1y ago
  That's a really interesting distinction. You're right that tech communities operate under different social contracts than political ones. I'm curious what you think those different "social rules and standards" should be? Like, in a political system, we accept inefficiency for legitimacy. Do you think a proposal system where voting power is earned through contribution would create fundamentally different dynamics than traditional political voting? Would that change the types of decisions that get made?
- psychoslave 1y ago
  How something operating under any set of social rules and standard be supposed to be void of political beliefs and consequences? Look at where they tell "we don't make politics here" and see where the political power is actually being enforced at its outmost practical level. Some people seem to think that going to toilet is not political, ignoring the fact that having the underlying infrastructure to have toilets require a while city and political organization to keep it operational.

4b6442477b1280b 1y ago

>Stupid people are allowed to vote. ironic to say that here, where supposedly smart people say the dumbest, cringiest shit imaginable about a wide variety of topics.

moomoo11 1y ago
Well. Have you seen the news recently?
- ff12wq111 1y ago
  you mean paywall in reddit?
ff12wq111 1y ago
Exactly. Intelligence and good judgment seem to be very different things.I've seen brilliant engineers make terrible community decisions - sometimes because they're optimizing for profit or ego rather than community benefit. Maybe the real question isn't who's smart enough to participate, but how to design transparent decision-making systems regardless of external factors.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
Of one part, those who thrive in corporations must appear to drink the Flavor Aid. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair And then another part is the professional working class of privileged, moderately-to-highly educated, and brimming with ego without nuance or ambiguity while skewing to the tendencies of less wisdom, struggle, and wide-ranging life experience. There isn't much internal or external motivation towards integrity, self-improvement, or commonwealth investment. There are exceptions and they are gold.

bruce511 1y ago

I think this point is completely fair and correct, if we consider democracy to be one person one vote. Given that definition, "mob rule" is not something to be prevented, but encouraged. You may prefer some other system, and in many cases another system will likely lead to better outcomes, but that system is not Democracy. To the original poster I say, you've spotted the root flaw in democracy. It does indeed allow everyone to vote, and many remain ignorant of the implications of what they are voting for, or are susceptible to manipulation. You may attempt to fix these attributes in individual people (good luck with that) or you may thought-consider a system that is not democracy. What you can't do is change the system and call it democracy.

ff12wq111 1y ago
You're absolutely right about the definitional clarity - I appreciate that precision. Actually, what we're experimenting with in GistFans tries to bridge this gap. We have a hybrid system: everyone gets basic voting rights (maintaining the democratic principle you describe), but we also have weighted "contribution votes" based on earned influence. So it's not replacing democracy, but adding a parallel track. Basic decisions use equal votes, but for governance and quality decisions, contribution-based weight provides additional input. Think of it as "democracy plus meritocracy" rather than replacing one with the other. But we believe: hybrid democracy is also democracy. Just as representative democracy and direct democracy are both legitimate forms of democratic governance, contribution-weighted democracy can preserve democratic legitimacy while addressing practical concerns about informed participation. This way we preserve the fundamental democratic principle you're defending - everyone has a voice - while creating mechanisms for those most invested in outcomes to have proportional influence. Do you think this hybrid approach maintains democratic legitimacy while addressing some of the practical concerns about informed decision-making?