305
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com

UPDATE: Proposal approved, see https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/36484194 for policy change announcement.


Ahoy me hearties!

We were thinking this might be a good test run topic for instance voting in our !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com community. Please be patient with us if anything breaks or isn't working properly. Feedback is welcome.

The voting topic

Given the current political backdrop and recent video of Elon Musk performing clearly identifiable Nazi salutes at the Presidential inauguration, some communities have started banning all links to X/Twitter. A couple of examples I noticed yesterday:

The vote is on whether our instance should follow suit and implement an instance-wide ban on X/Twitter links in posts and comments.

I've noticed some people suggesting allowing screenshots to still be used (e.g. for memes). Feel free to drop a comment if you have an opinion on that.

How to vote

Simply upvote or downvote this post. The /0 Bot will automatically calculate and update a tally of votes every 15 mins or so according to the voting rules (so don’t expect instant updates). An upvote is counted in favour of the resolution. A downvote is counted as against the resolution.

Note regarding crossposting: please be aware that only votes on the original post in !div0_governance@lemmy.dbzer0.com will be counted.

When to vote

Voting starts as of now. We'll close voting once the flow of votes stops - not sure exactly when that will be yet, but I'd like to keep the topic open for at least 2 or 3 days (maybe a week?) to give everyone a chance to vote.

Who can vote

TLDR here is that anyone can vote, but your votes will be weighted differently depending if you are a financial supporter, local instance member or external instance member.

As discussed in the announcement post, the initial plan was that only stakeholders can vote and open threads. That now includes everyone who is supporting us with any monthly donation amount.

Voting rights have also been extended so that votes of other local instance members who otherwise have no voting rights will be accounted at a rate of 1/100 from a random sample of up to 1000 of their votes. This means that a vote can go up to max +/- 10 from local community votes and it’s a fractional count (i.e. +1.1, or -0.7) which should make the local community sentiment an excellent tiebreaker, without overwhelming the people who are directly supporting the instance. Furthermore, I decided to display the “outsider sentiment” which is votes from non-valid-voting users from other instances. The outsider sentiment is only flavour (“Positive”, “Negative” etc) and is disregarded from the total. This is just shown for reference of the outsider sentiment which I think might be useful.

What constitutes a successful vote on a topic?

We are totally open to debate on this. I was thinking for this topic, a 2/3 majority vote would be a good target to aim for so we can be certain the community vote represents a clear majority of our users' opinions.

My thinking here is that if some topics are split close to 50/50 then achieving a 51% vote for example does not produce a clear mandate and may simply cause unnecessary division.

Having said that, I acknowledge a 2/3 majority is an arbitrary choice, but unless we implement a more complex voting system hopefully it is "good enough" to indicate a clear majority. As mentioned previously, feedback is very welcome and we will review and make adjustments where necessary.

Community participation

I strongly encourage all our instance members as well as subscribers from different instances to vote on this topic. If we only get a small handful of votes it's not going to be very representative of overall sentiment. This is a test run, so if things don't work out in terms of participation we will re-assess and perhaps revisit the topic.#

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MrPoopyButthole@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 weeks ago

I've never had a Twitter account so I vote get rid of it.

load more comments (1 replies)

I would suggest that you set a fixed voting period in the future. This makes the process more transparent. Maybe a week or two in general for each decision. With a proper announcement prior, make a week or three day before coting may start.

[-] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

I wasn't sure how many votes we would get for this first vote, so wasn't sure how long to leave it open for. I left it at the default of 7 days. But we already have a good representative sample of local users. As of today we've had 269 local upvotes vs 20 downvotes so there's really no chance at this stage of a change to the result, especially since we only had a handful of extra votes since yesterday. We also need some agility to make decisions in a reasonable timeframe.

Fortunately though, so long as we have an adequate sample size of our active users then we can be reasonably confident in the results, statistically speaking. But I'd like to make sure everyone who wants to vote gets a chance to vote, so I do like your idea of advanced notice :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] zaknenou@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

tbh I upvoted before reading the whole thing, than took it back. I just want to see the final result without interacting

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dethedrus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

No on links, yes on screenshots.

I don't think we are doing much if any to amplify their message, but I think it's safest to watch their the fourth reich play out from a distance. As best we can.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Sivecano@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago

I do think, that screenshots have a place especially since they may also be older. I also think it would be a pain to police and maybe a bit too much censorship.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] gazby@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

I'm not going to vote because I don't have a strong feeling about the Xitter links, but I do have strong feelings about the logic (or IMO lack thereof) that's driving this. It's a slippery slope I think, and I invite others to consider the implications:

  • If this is about Leon, as stated in the OP, what makes Xitter deserving of a block, but not SpaceX or Tesla?
  • What amount of engagement will X be denied in reality (i.e. does this block achieve the intended effect)? Especially now that every tweet screenshot we see will have to be independently verified by ourselves...
  • If the slope slips (like here, and here, and here, for example) where is the line drawn? Will we proceed to ban Alphabet and Amazon properties too?
[-] div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

I think nitter/image links should be allowed, but direct links to twitter should be banned.

[-] div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
[-] S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

Until when the vote is held? I want to support but I can't right now.

[-] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago

I think we'll keep it open for a few days, no rush.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cabb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

I think direct links should be banned. Screenshots aren't great but we already don't have that much content across Lemmy as a whole so I think we should allow them for the foreseeable future.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FediNeko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago

I'm new here, but still going to comment on the screenshots.

A: ban the links. B: I would say screenshots should be allowed since the point is to curb the traffic and anything in a distasteful screenshot could fall under other rules in general anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)

1/100 from a random sample of up to 1000 of their votes.

Whaa?

So votes are 0.01 of a vote?

100 users collectively have 1 vote? Like that?

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

1/100 for non-supporting, non-vouched and non-mvp users, yes. The linked threads explain it.

1/100 seems extreme, I think a 1/2, 1/3 or even 1/4 of a vote, would be enough to minimize the possible effects of potential sockpuppeting.

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

It's not just about sockpuppeting. It's about primarily wanting people invested in this instance to have a say. To put it another way, this instance has less than 30 supporters and MVPs putting the actual effort for the 1000 other MAUs. My belief is that those users deserve the most say in the decision-making. A 1/2 from the others, would completely overwhelm any such say.

[-] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

True, but I think it's good feedback. We should probably consider bumping up the weighting of the non-supporting instance users from 1% of total votes to a larger percentage. I support the idea that donating users should have more of a say, but we could manage it something like the following to ensure there needs to be an alignment between the views of the donating/vouched users and the non-donating home instance users.

Example below using arbitrary weights (for consideration):

  1. Votes from vouched users or donating users is weighted to 50% of overall tally (this proportion still provides a big boost to voting power given the number of people who donate).
  2. Overall votes from non-donating home instance users is weighted to 45% of overall tally.
  3. Overall votes from external instance users is weighted to 5% of overall tally.

The final math would be as follows:

  • Donating/vouched members = Count of Yes votes / total votes from this group, e.g. 55% in favour x 50% weighting
  • Non-donating home instance sentiment = Count of Yes votes / total votes from this group, e.g. 61% in favour x 45% weighting
  • External sentiment = Count of Yes votes / total votes from this group, e.g. 80% in favour x 5% weighting
  • Total voting tally: Donating/vouched members + Non-donating home instance sentiment + External sentiment, so for this example, we would get: 27.50% + 27.45% + 4.00% = weighted average of 59% in favour, so it would not pass the 66.6% threshold.
[-] cabb@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I would prefer this system to the current one. A census method will have less error than a SRS in determining what the community wants, and this is clearer in how much say the different groups get. With the current system you would have to know the relative sizes of contributing vs non-contributing members to have an idea of how much say the non-contributing members get.

If we did implement this, would we use the vouch system to determine which external members get to vote? It seems vulnerable to brigading if not.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] div0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
305 points (100.0% liked)

/0 Governance

91 readers
63 users here now

A community for discussion and democratic decision making in the Divisions by zero.

Anyone with voting rights can open a governance thread and initiate a vote or a discussion. There's no special keywords you must be aware of before you open a thread, but there are some. here's the governance thread manual.

Answers

founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS