All the types of democracies described are really not democracies. They are at best representative democracies where a small group of elected politicians impose their ideology for a certain number of years to a large number of people, whether they like them or not, until the next elections. At worst, they can be dictatures parading as democracies.

Of all the democracies mentionned, only direct democracy is compatible with the real meaning of democracy: Rule by the people.

In a world where information is widely available, people are better prepared to have a responsible opinion and, as a group, come up with the best solution (see the book " wisdom of the crowds " ). If you are looking for a system where citizens meaningfully participate in the political process, look at the Swiss system.

I would deconstruct these labels to their components (from their definition) and put them into an analytic framework before continuing this discussion. These labels are not alternative categories to the same dimension, so finding the dimensions would be a good choice. E.g., direct is often touted as the far end of a spectrum, where the other end is representative democracy. Liberal is more complex, because it refers also to an ideology, but it can also be assigned to a spectrum of its own, where the other end is authoritarian. Non-hierarchical seems to me to represent governance mode, that is, the relationship between state and non-state actors, famously signified by the three arcehtypical modes: markets, hierarchies, and networks, with loads of hybrids in between. Distributive and ecology-orientation seems to me more normative, and politically loaded terms that does nothing to explain democracy itself. For example, an ecological dictatorship is equally probable as an ecologically-sensitive regulations of the free market - if methods to cost environmental risks is given. But I ask of you, are there any deterministic relationships between the dimensions? Are liberal principles a prerequisite to move away on the spectrum from authoritarian, paternalistic democracy? Is it necessary to move from representative to direct? I would think some normative assumption has to be in place that values the individual and its freedoms, otherwise what is the argument to empower people for direct democracy? There is this concept of the monitorial citizen that filters matters of relevance to themselves and uses media, and NGO, a trusted institution, or some ICT solution to keep tabs on the personalized performance of elected governments. This could relate to your last label of online democracy, but would also make only sense if democracy is more direct (at least there are more tools than elections to give/revoke consent), and it also conforms to liberal norms. Bottomline, I do not agree that behind these lables there are comparable objects, they are in different locations in an analytic frameworks. Some underlying norms (liberal), some are governance modes (direct), some are institutional designs (digital), some are approaches to economic coordination, not even related to democracy (distributive). Some of these work well together, some require social or technical innovations to work (e.g., eco-autocracy is cheaper than eco-democracy, liberalism has to be reconciled with theories of justice for distributive arrangements).