You may lynch me, ;-) but I don't think people need to be helped in the form of compensation when it comes to voting differences.
I have been working as a social worker for many years now and I have learned one thing: each story has its own non-public version, each one presented differently by the people involved. If someone wants to be advised about a conflict, they can do so. If someone takes an online conflict seriously enough, for example, to exchange ideas offline with someone who can offer them a helpful perspective, that would be helping them to help themselves.
Democratic principles such as the legislature, executive and judiciary do not work in this environment because nobody has ever established them. Therefore, one doesn't adhere to this separation of powers because it is non-existent here. But whoever invokes it does so in a kind of lawless or lawlessly arbitrary space. Every large platform has difficulties with this.
The question of whether people believe that this place here will provide such a legal space will determine whether they simply continue to behave as they do in the Wild West. If not very many people really believe that such a thing will be established here - because it is also a highly speculative crypto-currency space and people see this here strictly economically and not socially - and there is no "government" to call upon, not all of them will feel obliged to listen to those who have taken on certain similar executive functions here. There is no consensus.
This space, if it were large enough, would eventually be regulated externally, much as, for example, the major portal operators are now doing now that they have gained economic and political weight.
In principle - I suspect - our societies, both offline and online, are still based on the often unconscious assumption that people need to be governed and need guidance, and I think that, in parts, this is in any case a consistent assumption. Only the form of governance could be different. Online places like this one could be a good example of this. It is a pity that it does not set a good example. One who sees himself as an individualist and thinks he can govern himself (and others without a mandate from all participants), has lost his mind in my opinion.
Should they downvote markymark for using Mark Wahlberg's pop-star name (impersonation)?
To answer that one: This would be none of my business. It's Marks Wahlberg's business and maybe he would do something about it if he would know. Or maybe not. Who knows. I don't care.
Take care - always a pleasure to comment on your topics.
RE: What's in it for me?