We recently published an informational article in Italian, visible to all our Italian users, providing some details and our official positions regarding the referendum on justice reform in Italy, scheduled for March 22-23, 2026.
There has been some controversy surrounding the published version, with a post on our Italian blog, which forces us to explain some details that anyone who is our user knows.
First, we need to explain that our system has numerous working groups, for numerous activities and for a wide range of issues, such as legislative proposals (anywhere in the world), but also for individual news items. Specialist groups, or groups of various types, are immediately created, in which each of our official members can take center stage. Each person who logs in has a unique link, where, by simply typing a few words as a title and a few other details, they receive information about our groups that discuss, analyze, and vote on practically anything. If an activity doesn't exist, a group is immediately created, and the member managing that group invites friends, other official members, or requests the collaboration of other groups (primarily specialists, but also local groups, and of various types) to carry out activities together. The rules are very detailed but very simple.
Our Italian community is one of the largest, with many official members, who together own all our Italian businesses and platforms. Together with all our European official members, they own all our European businesses. And together with all our official members, they own our entire system internationally.
DirectDemocracyS Italia has been talking about justice in its country since the conception and creation of our system, and it does so with various expert groups, but also with many independent working groups, in which countless activities take place.
Returning to our post, which some have judged to be too long, repetitive, inadequately structured, and above all, too favorable to the "yes" vote, deemed inconsistent with our official positions on justice.
The version published on our websites is the intermediate version, detailed enough to get an idea and make an informed decision, without being overly technical and too lengthy to study. We have already made public a shorter version, less detailed but still explaining some important aspects. Each of our users is free to request and study the version they prefer, based on their skills and needs.
We're sorry to disappoint you, but we couldn't include a short version because this is such an important referendum. To summarize in a few words would have risked being unclear. The professional version, which is very detailed, and therefore much longer, and above all much more technical, would have been difficult for everyone to understand . Therefore, our Italian blog management teams have chosen, in a Solomonic manner, to publish and make the intermediate version visible to everyone.
We've been told it's too repetitive—you always tell us this, and we always tell you that we repeat things when it's important to do so, to give the reader a 360-degree view, or when certain topics and sentences are connected. Repetition is very useful for understanding the context, and because often just one word in a sentence changes, without the entire concept, you risk missing some important details.
We prefer to be clear, always honest, and avoid the risk of misinterpretation by those who study us. Long articles, with some concepts repeated several times, risk losing us, at least initially, some potential users/voters, who are superficial and judge a book by its cover or its title. In our initial stages, which are crucial and very delicate, losing users who lack the patience and interest to study our system is a huge advantage and very useful for having the right people in the right places. Too fast growth, with unavailable people, is of no use to us; slow and continuous growth is better, with those willing to directly engage in making our entire system concrete and better. Quality is in the initial stages, and will be for a long time, very useful for having a truly competent and professional system. We call it natural selection, which, while not excluding anyone, does in fact; we delay activation to very few people, but we reject no one.
The published post is set up exactly as it should be, and explains everything in the best possible way, without any kind of preference, and also offers some instructions, which give you an idea of how many of our activities are carried out.
Impartiality is undeniable, we always have been, and we always will be.
To some people who passively and helplessly endure ideologies, divisions, and political "wars," or those who see them as enemies rather than adversaries, or who refuse to admit that others might have good ideas because they support certain political forces and representatives and consider any proposal from others to be wrong, our positions, in suggesting (without ever imposing anything on anyone), seem like external support for the Meloni government, or for the center-right in general.
Those who know us know that we analyze only concrete, undeniable, and pragmatic facts.
As we clearly explain in the post: for us, the reform is too fragmented, incomplete, and could be much more courageous. It's not the best, but it can be improved, and it could certainly be two steps forward, although there's certainly also one step back.
Regarding our alleged "preference" for a yes vote, if we did not recommend the approval of this partial, incomplete, ineffective, and not entirely ethical reform, it would be like admitting that justice in Italy, with the old laws, functions perfectly, and anyone with at least two functioning neurons knows otherwise. Justice in Italy, and throughout the world, is not fair, equitable, neutral, free, and independent . It is not equal for everyone, so a change, even if it does not entirely conform to our preferences and concrete proposals, is always better than leaving things as they are. DirectDemocracyS is innovative and alternative, but we can also consider ourselves reformists. Change and improve the world, and without change, nothing improves.
Now we'll explain something all our Italian members know: our preference for advising everyone to vote yes, as DirectDemocracyS's official position, and therefore for making the reform legal, is not based solely on its content.
Several thousand of our Italian members, in dozens (perhaps hundreds) of groups, took a vote, following numerous discussions, meetings, and explanations from various experts.
The internal simulated vote was conducted by those who actually said they would vote, and nearly 99.7% of those eligible to vote declared a 52% Yes victory over a 48% No vote. If more than 50% +1 of our official members eligible to vote, in the various groups, with the various electors, vote Yes, our official position, although not entirely satisfied with these reforms, is to advise all our users to vote Yes. We could not decide otherwise, out of the sacred respect we have, and always will have, for our users/future voters. Voting was only conducted once, and we may conduct further simulated votes in the days leading up to the real elections. If we decide otherwise, we will modify the article and public posts, advising people to vote No in the referendum at the actual elections.
This is not a reform introduced by DirectDemocracyS, and it is not a referendum proposed by us, so there is no higher quorum to decide. Anyone who has read some of our articles knows well that for important laws and rules, our system requires much higher quorums than a simple majority. But there are detailed rules that must be studied to understand many of our motivations.
What's somewhat disappointing about some of the messages we've received is that we're being told we're not consistent with our own proposals. This is because, if the "yes" vote wins, this reform would result in randomly selecting some justice positions and important roles. Above all, it would risk rendering some public prosecutors incapable of conducting investigations because they're subservient to various governments.
Our promise, if we win the elections, will be to eliminate random selection for any position, basing everything on equality, always united and guaranteed for all, forever, along with meritocracy. We will make every state institution free, independent, neutral, and secure, eliminating all interference from political forces and their respective political representatives, and always submitting everything to the popular will—not in a generalized, manipulated, and unsafe manner, but through our platforms, where people are not manipulated, but informed, and above all, protected from any brainwashing. As we promised, we will place the common interest at the center of every decision, making the people sovereign , and implementing every sensible and competent decision.
PS: The phrase we often repeat: anyone with at least two functioning neurons, is simply to clarify that literally everyone understands certain obvious things and understands reality. We never want to be considered offensive, and we never use verbal abuse. However, to say that someone who, given the choice between a right and a wrong system, chooses the wrong or imperfect one is stupid is simply a statement of the truth. Between good and evil, choose the good, or the lesser evil, and you'll be considered intelligent, or even a little more intelligent.
PS We hope that those who sent us indignant messages have partially understood our motivations, and perhaps have understood a little better some of our rules, methodologies, instructions, and motivations, which only those who are inside us know and use continuously and completely.