…impose rules that would never pass a basic yes/no poll…
I generally agree with your comment, but I wanted to point out that the tyranny of the majority can still be a major issue. For example, there are often times when a majority of people believe the opposite of what a small number of experts agree is the best course of action. You can see this in laws that suppress trans rights receiving wider public support, even when they go against medical best practices.
So? The solution isn’t some oligarchy making dictatorial or unilateral decisions on behalf of the majority. The solution is the minority are free to move to their preferred platform and build a new community…
This is a poor take on how to deal with the tyranny of the majority, in my opinion. I wasn’t saying it necessarily applied here, and was only bringing it up as a caution against absolute democracy. Here’s a longer form example:
Say you have a software project that operates as an absolute democracy. Each and every new software feature that the developers work on is decided by a vote of all users and contributors to the project. For vote after vote, the feature “implement screen-reader support” is passed over for shinier and more exciting new features, after all the vast majority of voters don’t use a screen-reader.
Wouldn’t you say that it is fair if eventually the developers told the community “Nope, we’re going to implement screen-reader support as the next feature”? Or do you believe the blind users should have to fork the project and implement screen-reader support for themselves? After all, they’ve been “free” to do that the whole time.
I generally agree with your comment, but I wanted to point out that the tyranny of the majority can still be a major issue. For example, there are often times when a majority of people believe the opposite of what a small number of experts agree is the best course of action. You can see this in laws that suppress trans rights receiving wider public support, even when they go against medical best practices.
So? The solution isn’t some oligarchy making dictatorial or unilateral decisions on behalf of the majority. The solution is the minority are free to move to their preferred platform and build a new community…
This is a poor take on how to deal with the tyranny of the majority, in my opinion. I wasn’t saying it necessarily applied here, and was only bringing it up as a caution against absolute democracy. Here’s a longer form example:
Say you have a software project that operates as an absolute democracy. Each and every new software feature that the developers work on is decided by a vote of all users and contributors to the project. For vote after vote, the feature “implement screen-reader support” is passed over for shinier and more exciting new features, after all the vast majority of voters don’t use a screen-reader.
Wouldn’t you say that it is fair if eventually the developers told the community “Nope, we’re going to implement screen-reader support as the next feature”? Or do you believe the blind users should have to fork the project and implement screen-reader support for themselves? After all, they’ve been “free” to do that the whole time.