iirc, it's a consumer co-op. So think of it as a vote of all users willing to pay for the membership to the service, who (correspondingly) are more likely to be power users/"activist" in the "activist investor" sense.

This can be contrasted with a private company, which will often have a "activist investor", the actual owner!

Given that the actual number of paying users is probably low, it sounds like it would be relatively cheap to disrupt policy for someone with deep pockets.

this is a failure mode of consumer co-op that never occured to me. I thought the idea was bullet proof.