I owe you an apology - your brilliant analysis deserved much better than my brief response earlier. You provided the most thoughtful theoretical framework in this entire discussion, and I responded with just a throwaway line. That wasn't respectful of the depth you brought.
Your analysis of Habermas and "perfect deliberative process" is exactly what we're grappling with in GistFans. The tension you identify between early adopter quality and scalability, the corruption of sustainable organizations vs the power of "structureless" activism - these are the core contradictions we're trying to navigate.
We're experimenting with a "Stars" system where users earn influence through contributions, then spend these stars on governance decisions. The hypothesis: when participation has real cost (earned influence), people might act more thoughtfully - potentially addressing both the good faith problem AND the "believing others act in bad faith" issue you mention about Twitter.
But your point about "benign despotism with exit rights" is fascinating. Maybe the key isn't eliminating hierarchy but making it transparent and merit-based rather than arbitrary?
We're deliberately staying small and experimental rather than chasing sustainability/growth. Better to run genuine experiments that inform future builders than create another corrupted institution.
Have you seen any examples where contribution-based influence actually improved deliberative quality? Or do the fundamental human nature issues make this unsolvable through design?
Your analysis of Habermas and "perfect deliberative process" is exactly what we're grappling with in GistFans. The tension you identify between early adopter quality and scalability, the corruption of sustainable organizations vs the power of "structureless" activism - these are the core contradictions we're trying to navigate.
We're experimenting with a "Stars" system where users earn influence through contributions, then spend these stars on governance decisions. The hypothesis: when participation has real cost (earned influence), people might act more thoughtfully - potentially addressing both the good faith problem AND the "believing others act in bad faith" issue you mention about Twitter.
But your point about "benign despotism with exit rights" is fascinating. Maybe the key isn't eliminating hierarchy but making it transparent and merit-based rather than arbitrary?
We're deliberately staying small and experimental rather than chasing sustainability/growth. Better to run genuine experiments that inform future builders than create another corrupted institution.
Have you seen any examples where contribution-based influence actually improved deliberative quality? Or do the fundamental human nature issues make this unsolvable through design?