> You mean one person, one vote.

That's not direct democracy though. Here you refer to voting a representative, who may do anything.

Direct democracy means people decide on things directly. It is probably not possible since not everyone has enough time to read every law, so representatives may have to be used but it could be that the people can decide on individual laws and wordings directly. We don't seem to have that form anywhere right now.

Sure direct and representative democracy are different, but this is a bit of a tangent.

What I was trying to say above is that having an unregulated space doesn't mean it's therefore naturally representative of the underlying population.

The key differentiator between a democracy and other systems is the idea that you have one person one vote, and power isn't distributed on the basis of money or some other feature.

All I'm saying is, in a totally unregulated online space you'll get dominance by fanatics with money ( if it's important ) .

ie unregulated != democratic.

And it's a mistake to think the opposite.

See, for a comedic treatment, Peter Cook's The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer (1970), co-written by Peter Cook, John Cleese, Graham Chapman and Billington.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Rise_of_Michael_R...

  Relying on a combination of charisma and deception—and murder—he then rapidly works his way up the political ladder to become prime minister (after throwing his predecessor off an oil rig).

  Rimmer introduces direct democracy by holding endless referendums on trivial or complex matters via postal voting and televoting, which generates so much voter apathy that the populace protests against the reform.

  Having introduced direct democracy in a bid to gain ultimate power, Rimmer holds a last vote to 'streamline government', which would give him dictatorial powers; with the populace exhausted, the proposal passes.