If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.
I don’t think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.
That’s incorrect. It’s not a concept that exists solely in my head. It’s a long time known and well studied topic, that one can easily research.
I’m not an AI that exists to please your command. You have agency and a brain, you can interact with the world yourself.
I’m trying to give constructive advice on communication skills, but anyways, the concept of clustering as an alternative to or in addition to voting is an interesting concept that i’ll explore. Thank you for sharing