No I think that's the best way to do it. Strongly depends on the country you're in, what kind of legal constructs it allows, but having some organization that's in the contract instead of some person is the way to go. That org can then handle votings etc (can even use the instance for that).

Noooo high me is supposed to give bad advice I have trained him that way. I woke up and am sober (wrll, for me) and am so disappointed in him

The thing is nobody wants to be a mod in here. 100% of those who apply are taken

Also seems to be growing organically unlike the rest of mastodon . codeberg is also democratic and grows organically as indicated by donations.

There is some evidence this model could be beneficial. there is some research about the benefits of credit unions and housing cooperative which is also indirect evidence iirc.

Would a blockchain be better for a voting system?

Oh hey, we had one of those once... !simdemocracy@lemmy.world

I am completely sober but the Idea I got is more insane than yours.

The trust thing basically cannot work for me. It's not only expensive, but I don't think it's a good idea to operate a social media trust from my jurisdiction( India ). So if anyone wants to go forward with trusts, it must be someone from Europe not me.

The idea I have, which honestly sounds crazy, but may be the only way individual owners can run these instances, is the idea of mutually assured destruction. Basically, why, despite having nukes, have we not used them yet? Because nuclear attack means both the partners will mutually assured destruction.

Similarly, if I give admins and server owner both the power to delete the server, with admins having to vote a simple majority in order to do so, it basically creates a mutually assured destruction scenario, where both have to co-operate.

Similarly, if I give admins and server owner both the power to delete the server, with admins having to vote a simple majority in order to do so, it basically creates a mutually assured destruction scenario, where both have to co-operate.

if you were an instance owner you would also want to run that by your lawyer. i'm not a lawyer but i have not had coffee and i can see four different scenarios that having a killswitch like that would get you in neck deep shit. stuff like willful and premeditated destruction of evidence, depending on the severity, blah blah blah. short version, everyone i work with works in pen, not pencil. not because we're that good (we are) but because if we need to remove something from any records, you (generally) do it by amending the record to show the correction, not deleting the error.