Sure, there are various views about what constitutes quality. But I think there is a lot of agreement on what constitutes shit posting. And that auto-voting such shit posting is not good for the platform as a whole. And that directing those votes to quality content (found by curators) is good for the platform. I think there is agreement on that. If there is agreement, the question is how to make it happen so that people who auto-vote their friends' shitposts switch to voting for quality curated content.
Agreed about governance, and a new reputation system may help a lot with that. But I still think that even with the current system, things could go better if more people took interest in witnesses and proposals. I was thinking that including more information about governance in the existing intake processes and frontends can help.
Yes there is :)
Downvotes, if people use them.
For sure. There is no perfect system, but not much improves through disinterest.
Yeah, if they use them. For shitposts of popular authors? I wouldn't myself unless there is anonymous downvoting. Would you?