There's a tension between this idealised democratic internet and what actually happens when everyone gets online. You see it with subreddits as they get bigger. The content drops off a cliff as more people arrive. That Pynchon sub me and
@linebaugh were on was great for a while then eventually slid into people just posting pictures of the books or their new Pynchon tattoo.
Totally agree, and the DAO space is filled with it too - the joke is that DAO actually stands for "dudes arguing online."
Its a great way to put democratic ideals to the test, and usually have them wither away pretty rapidly haha. You can give people direct governance capabilities over collective decisions, but because these decisions are usually complex (if they're about important things), most people don't end up really exercising those rights, and the whole system usually (and naturally) gets slanted toward those who are more outspoken and/or motivated.
Its crazy that the DAO space has seen all this profound governance-related innovation, like the ability to have totally liquid democracy at scale without centralized representatives, but almost none of it gets mainstream recognition, what with all the scams sucking up the mainstream attention.
But yeah, to your point about quality, a lot of these democratic experiments involve wasting a lot of time and energy on people who don't really know what they're talking about, or don't know how to engage in respectful dialogue with those whom they disagree with.
Of course thats more of a factor when there are matters of governance, especially with a shared treasury at stake, but what you seem to be describing is more like a salon or discussion group being diluted by shitposting - another drawback of being open/democratic, as opposed to maybe an invite-only discusison group.