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.
Yes, but that’s not what “the market” is about, and nobody would ever make the claim that it is.
The market operates in whatever environment it’s in. It’s the job of the people running the market to set the rules, environment and make people follow the rules.
sidenote: That is not true btw. Market stalls cost money, there is limited space available and there are terms and conditions relating to the products you’re allowed to sell and your conduct on the market. If you violate those rules, you don’t get to participate, and the administration running the market doesn’t have to give you a stall. You don’t have an unconditional right to participate.
If and only if, e.g. safety of the customers is something that’s in those conditions, then it becomes a rule that’s part of the environment the market participants have to navigate. But the responsibility for setting those rules is on the administration, not on the market participants.
Define market
It’s an artificially created, partially abstract environment where people buy and sell goods and services, sometimes using money.
I read this as “a created environment where people buy/sell, typically with money”