Glad I could help…

Now to reply to the post itself, I think this sums it up:

Though the sad truth is that almost every single product or service we use are owned and run by people with similar opinions, it is literally the nature of the capitalist beast, it’s how it function, and why it will always decay in to fascism - because those with the power and the money (not just those at the very very top, but several levels bellow them, too, like this guy) will always and forever care solely about maintaining it and creating more for themselves, that’s it. And to do that, they have to side with whichever dictator-du-jour benefits them the most.

Remember - there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and this is only one of the reasons why.

deleted by creator

I can’t be the only one who struggled to read that, and for general accessibility purposes since I’m already here:

Image ID:

andy1011000 Proton CEO posted:

“People honestly seem to forget that I live in Switzerland, where Republican/Democrat doesn’t mean anything, and Trump isn’t even on our ballot to be voted for…”

Onyx376. replied:

“The point is that fighting for a more just and equal society is not just about fighting for the fundamental right to privacy but also for all other fundamental rights, including individual rights and life. When you, as the CEO of a company that starts from these principles, nod positively to whatever action a political figure like Trump, who is known for always flagrantly putting his private interests ahead of those of his own nation, makes speeches about eliminating minorities, hurting their rights as citizens and flirting with Nazi movements, it is understandable that members of the privacy community are disappointed as this reveals a little about who is being the face of a company that should follow contrary principles. But now we really know what “freedom” means to you.”

This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, but sadly people wouldn’t listen, they were (rightfully!) so desperate to get the tories out, they didn’t want to hear that the establishment had arranged for them to be voting another one straight in.

And they also don’t want to hear that this was entirely intentional, that it is a well established way of getting the blue tories back in and worse than ever next election, and that continuing to play this silly game of “vote for one of the two people we’ve approved for you to vote for” is ever going to benefit us as a society, but only the ones manipulating us in to keeping them in power.

And so the exact same cyclical shit will keep happening.

Removed by mod

Ok, fantastic! I definitely agree with trying it out more open at first and then adjusting as/if needed when issues come up. Which they’re bound to, because we’re a bunch of random people on the internet after all, but I think addressing them as they come would be easier both on you in terms of not having to plan ahead for every eventuality (easier said than done, I know), but also easier to resolve each individual issue, because it’ll be right in front of you/the community to assess and consider as is, rather than a hypothetical.

Thanks for taking the time to talk things through and clarify, it is very much appreciated, and is a great sign of things to come!

Maybe I’m misunderstanding? From what I gather from this post, while those who have been vouched for (and thrediverse enjoyers) can vote, but only those who donate can open threads up in the relevant comm, which to my understanding is the only way to bring issues up for a vote in the first place? That seems like more privilege.

Like I said, I hear you, and I understand that it is a complicated issue to resolve, and that this is only an initial solution, but that you are aware and taking it in to consideration, and I’m genuinely not trying to give you a hard time or be a pain, just wanting to keep my concern on the record.

Subscribed.

Now I know we’ve discussed this and that you’ve clearly explained why this is currently the case and heard and understood my concerns (as I have yours), and also clarified here that it is just an initial solution, so I’m not trying to rehash the discussion, but just want to stay on the record saying that I am uncomfortable with those who can donate money being given more privilege/power, however seemingly minor, than those who can’t, and I am really hoping a better solution can be worked out eventually.

Either way, thank you for all the time and resources you have and are investing in this instance, this development is genuinely exciting, and I can’t wait to see how it’ll work in practice!

Good on you!

Yeah, like I said, I understand that they are not the same and that online communities bring up challenges that irl ones don’t, but I think we should still try to apply as many of the same principals to online communities as we would to irl ones as possible.

That said, I absolutely recognise that not everyone has the funds or energy to be seen, which is why I want to provide other ways for recognition to happen.

Cool, that’s basically the point I was aiming at with far too many words lol and just to reiterate, none of it was criticism or doubt of your admining, just wanting to highlight potential pitfalls.

Re flairs and tags, thanks for clarifying! It’s completely understandable that it isn’t a top priority, it isn’t one for me as a user either, though I do like the idea of a personal strike system for milder offenders before resorting to blocking lol but also to highlight friendlies, since I’m terrible with names 😂I’ll have to keep an eye out for interesting extensions…

Well if someone cannot donate and cannot be seen contributing in any way, there’s very few ways to validate they’re a contributing member in the comm

Change online “comm” to real life “community” and that becomes pretty problematic (we should not be relating levels of contribution to levels of rights and power/say).

I’m genuinely not trying to give you a hard time, and I understand that the two are not the same, and that running an online community has its unique challenges (anonymity, trolls, sock accounts, vote manipulation, and on and on), but I also think it’s really important to keep the framing of things in mind because it can be so fucking easy to default, even without wanting or meaning to, to the hierarchal constructs we are familiar and surrounded with.

I’ve never run any community or organisation online or irl, not even modded a community (was only appointed as one on my previous shitjustworks account as a backup), so I don’t claim to fully understand the challenges you face in implementing this, or have a magic solution to offer, but I think these points are fundamental and worth highlighting, so I am.

As for the tagging, just to clarify, because I think I misunderstood what a tag or flair is, are they the same? I assumed a flair was the emoji looking things, and those it makes sense that only you can add, in my mind a tag would be like some of the apps have, where you can tag a user as say “troll” rather than blocking, but is that not a thing that is happening here? (sorry, I’m only just waking and baking lol)

Initial plan is that every subscriber should be allowed to vote, but only subscribers who fund a lot can open new votes for mandates.

I feel like this puts the poorest people in the community who may not be able to afford to donate as much or at all at a significant disadvantage and creates an unnecessary hierarchy (as well as, like you say, room for manipulation, someone who can afford to donate more having more power is icky), as do the different tiers for level of donation.

I can understand why you want to limit voting to people who are an active part of the community (though again, there becomes a hierarchy, like what about people who mostly lurk and only comment rarely? Do we start questioning why someone doesn’t participate as much as others? Neurodiversity and other health issues can play a huge part, as can poor education and access to information so someone might not feel confident enough to be very active, but are they then lesser members of the community? What about people who don’t have regular access to a device or reliable internet?), and I agree that there should be some way to tell who is a member in good faith and who isn’t, but I really don’t think that basing it on monetary value and stakeholders (which feels far too close in concept to shareholders), or ranking users in general is the way to go.

In any case, I think the fact that you want to make the instance’s running more communal is fantastic, and I think the idea itself is good, but parts of it might still need a little more cooking lol

As for the tags, can we as users tag other users? Will they see the tag, or that we tagged them? Will you, as a sysadmin?

It’s a nice thought, but sadly we will never get to find out…

It’s one of the reasons they maintain a poverty class, and invest in providing free (or heavily subsidised) education, housing, meals, and healthcare for soldiers (not to mention the massive and imperialist propaganda machine) - can’t feed the meat grinder if no one is desperate to enlist just to survive.

Mostly people are interested in what might benefit their lives. Not the thousands of hours it took to get there.

Nor in anything that might benefit the lives of people they see themselves completely detached from or even superior to, even if in reality they are either much more alike than they ever would or could admit, and or could end up in the other person’s shoes in a heartbeat.