I'm not frustrated. I *was* when I first saw it, but I've had more information come in and I'm starting to see a few dots that connect.

There's no point being frustrated with things there's no chance of changing :)

I disagree, mate. The principles still hold.

>"Downvoting" is considered to have intentional consequences. 

Agreed, but it's a negative one.
The consequences of down voting are _taking_  from  someone without permission.
That is theft.
That principle, as i see it, cannot be twisted by context. 

_Freedom to takeaway from others has many names_, but non of them are in pro free market  writings.

They are seen as an acceptable forms of behavior, of a control mechanism,  in hierarchical structures - like governments.

Put another way, if there was no down voting, it would not longer be a divisive issue. You can only vote FOR, not against. 

That seems like a positive start, just on it's own. 
The crap content would disappear with free market forces this way. (bots are a different issue)

Thanks for the reply, its nice to be appreciated.


The whale super voting/curation would still remain, of course, but not down voting would eliminate one part of a messy situation.

For me, the simplicity of the free market, is it's strength - it's only _when_ we try to tamper with it, when think _we_ are cleverer than 'it', the problems start.

Revising, and re- revising to stop the problems tampering caused in the first place, only compounds the issues - then we end up with socialism, eventually...

I don't think my input will change much anyway, and we will still have to live with others' decisions...

I am a mere sub minnow - an  amoeba - in the scheme of things..