Not sure the best idea, but it's the same in the stock market - only shareholders can vote.
What about the Twitter shareholders?
Blue subscribers should be the only ones that can vote in policy related polls
51–56 of 56 posts
Re: Blue subscribers should be the only ones that can vote in policy related polls
#52This is perfectly legal, and OK with me, but many will perceive it as "democracy for those who can pay."
Many will perceive having to pay $8 to vote as "democracy for those who can pay"? You don't say.
Re: Blue subscribers should be the only ones that can vote in policy related polls
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll perceive it that way because that's how it is. There's no need to muddy the waters with "many will perceive it[...]" when the reality is that in order to participate in the vote you have to pay money.
But is that actually bad? Don’t we want the people making decisions to have skin in the game? People use money everyday to express their preferences, why shouldn’t we use it here?
So should we bring back a poll tax then?
Re: Blue subscribers should be the only ones that can vote in policy related polls
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is that actually bad? Don’t we want the people making decisions to have skin in the game? People use money everyday to express their preferences, why shouldn’t we use it here?
So should we bring back a poll tax then?
I think a case could be made for it. Or something like only taxpayers get to vote since they are effectively deciding how to spend their collective dollars. This is how companies operate with shareholders and that seems to work and people don’t bat an eye at it.
Re: Blue subscribers should be the only ones that can vote in policy related polls
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll perceive it that way because that's how it is. There's no need to muddy the waters with "many will perceive it[...]" when the reality is that in order to participate in the vote you have to pay money.
But is that actually bad? Don’t we want the people making decisions to have skin in the game? People use money everyday to express their preferences, why shouldn’t we use it here?
"Is it bad to force people to pay for a service the owner calls a 'public square' in order to be allowed to have one's voice heard about how the public square is run?"
That's your question, correct? We're still talking about Elon's Public Square Bastion of Free Speech Twitter, correct? Would you like to rephrase your question, or will, "Yes, that's actually bad" suffice?
Re: Blue subscribers should be the only ones that can vote in policy related polls
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
But is that actually bad? Don’t we want the people making decisions to have skin in the game? People use money everyday to express their preferences, why shouldn’t we use it here?
"Is it bad to force people to pay for a service the owner calls a 'public square' in order to be allowed to have one's voice heard about how the public square is run?" That's your question, correct? We're still talking about Elon's Public Square Bastion of Free Speech Twitter, correct? Would you like to rephrase your question, or will, "Yes, that's actually bad" suffice?
No need to rephrase. That was indeed my question. Fact of the matter is, you need money to participate in society at large. I don’t see why it’s bad that Twitter’s not any different. I’m not here to defend Elon’s principles, but if charging people money for a service is bad, then that’s quite the indictment on society.