Has anyone read this book? It seems to suggest a solution to Power-Tripping Bastards...

luminosoa.org University of California Press

<p>When was the last time you participated in an election for an online group chat or sat on a jury for a dispute about a controversial post? Platforms nudge users to tolerate nearly all-powerful admins, moderators, and “benevolent dictators for life.” In <i>Governable Spaces</i>, Nathan Schneider a...

You're viewing a single thread.

11 comments

More democratic structures mean more discussions, votes, etc. This means people with more time will take up all the space. It’s also susceptible to outrage campaigns and similar. This can lead to a community getting preoccupied with meta topics, distracting from the main topic.
- More democratic structures mean more discussions, votes, etc.
  And what's the problem with that?
  It’s also susceptible to outrage campaigns and similar.
  That works well in anti-democratic societies - you have no proof that it will even be possible to do such in ones that can actually be called democratic with a straight face.
  
  The problem is it gives power to those with the most free time on their hands, eg the terminally online. That’s a fraction of users.
  I’ve been active in democratically run groups for decades now and it is always an issue.
- It certainly is a risk, but surely there must be ways to counter it...
  
  What can work well is asking the community with surveys and then the mods make a judgement call.
  Too much democracy creates a vulnerability to an influx of activists brigading for a cause unrelated to a community’s topic.
  A loud minority can drive out a silent majority of users.
  Contemporary example is Israel/Palestine. Some subreddits decided to become propaganda echo chambers, others made discussion of the topic against the rules.
  
  I definitely agree that there can be such thing as too much democracy.

11 comments