Iām sure itās wonderful but the issues tend to be more technical than governance. Iām sorry this will be a wall of text, but please trust me itās worth reading. This problem isnāt directly solved as easily as just saying āwe need to do it differently.ā
Even on Lemmy, there isnāt a built-in mechanism for coming to consensus other and upvotes/downvotes.
There isnāt a built-in mechanism for elections of moderators or admins. Donāt even get me started on how itās basically impossible to do for admins. Lemmy at least has the ability for individuals to say āI donāt like these admins, Iām spinning up my own instanceā¦ with blackjackā¦ and hookersā¦ in fact forget the instance.ā The problem being you canāt vote out an admin whenā¦ the server lives on their property and they can just unplug itā¦ when theyāre the financial backing of the siteā¦ and so on.
These are major structural problems in how computers and the internet are designed at their backbone. Those same systems bleed into the way our programs work, too.
The internet is a giant communications hub where flow of data matters, partitioning data matters, and Access Control Lists reign supreme.
It would require so much more technical background work than almost any programmer has been willing to put forth. Even Tildes, a small, unfederated reddit-esque clone made by the bloke who built reddits Automod is still his own feudal feifdom. He has been working on a āreputationā system for years at this point without any clear path towards real democracy. And this guy started the site having read books exactly like this and having written a ton about the same issues himself. Yet he comes to the same technical conclusions that are basically āAs an admin, I am the Emperor of Tildes.ā
Somehow, all the people who read these things still end up with the same conclusions: Itās my place, follow my rules or get out.
Iāve seen exactly one site get it halfway right and thatās MetaFilter, and that involved them becoming a non-profit organization and having scheduled elections of board members. The hiring of moderators (who are paid) is still done like a business where you are interviewed and hired and the community doesnāt have a ton of input into who gets hired. MetaFilter has been around since 1999 so theyāve had a lot of time to build this structure, and most of the structure exists outside their technical platform itself, which still relies on admins and moderators top-down controls in individual threads. This is the only site I know of where the site servers itself are legally owned by the non-profit, and thus the community, instead of the admin, Jessamyn, who used to own it directly.
From the MeFi non-profit changeover document:
Why is this happening?
For most of its history, the site operated under a single owner/decisionmaker, which was prone to burnout and bottlenecks. A first attempt at reform under a volunteer Steering Committee in 2022 ran into restrictions on volunteerism under the for-profit LLC. Jessamyn decided to pursue a transition to a different structure that would be better suited to community governance. Thereās a series of posts on MetaTalk that show all the posts and information as it happened, under the tag MeFiNonProfit; just start from the bottom.The only reason MeFi was able to achieve this, in my opinion, is having a very invested community for 20+ years. Our community on Lemmy has barely started, and it doesnāt include roadblocks for trolls like MeFi does (it costs $5 to open a MeFi account, tying your account to a payment card). How do we ensure our users are actually invested in our communities when itās a free for all to make as many throwaway accounts as you want? (or even worse, spinning up your own server and making hundreds of fake accounts flooding the fediverse)
Itās going to take a literal fucking technical genius to build a new system thatās not like that. The Mastodon/Lemmy developers are quality programmers, but they are not geniuses creating new types of consensus systems within their technical kingdoms. No, they all still want a level of control over what happens on what they would call ātheir property.ā (Thatā the other aspect, how much is built on property law and the fact that you can own a server.)
As I said, probably a great book, but the real issue is every new system being built with the same old top-down
admin > mod > user
breakdown. Until the technology adapts to a more democratic structure, we canāt actually escape this problem and it doesnāt seem like Schneierās book is laying out how we can program these new structures other than a seeming reliance on blockchainā¦ which seems superfluous.Thank you for all this insight into the problem. I guess itās a shame that itās
admin > mod > user
although I guess if itās the admins paying for the server it makes sense that they donāt want to lose complete control over what goes on in it (which community governance (=democracy) would achieve). Perhaps this would be alleviated if only paying members could vote (like at MeFi I suppose)ā¦ but then youād still have the friction of having to found a nonprofit for it, and the legal work of doing that is not something that the average person, or even geek, knows how to do.deleted by creator
If youāre going to tag your title, Do it like [this] or like #this. Clients like tesseract correctly parse and display such tags in their interface.
Thx for the tip
Seems like a good read to me
More democratic structures mean more discussions, votes, etc. This means people with more time will take up all the space. Itās 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 whatās the problem with that?
Itās 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. Thatās a fraction of users.
Iāve 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 itā¦
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 communityās 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.