I don't really like this idea, if I don't agree with a comment I usually comment about why I disagree, with your idea in place I would have to think if I really want to post a negative comment on the article because it could diminish it's earnings, something I am not interested in. Frankly if a whale up votes a shitty post, that's the whale's problem not mine. I don't agree with flagging either by the way.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's all about checks and balances - emphasis on "balances". If whales upvote shitty posts, it's not just their problem. It creates a perceived unfair balance of the reward pool that is to be divvied up among everyone else as much as possible, and perception is everything in the success of a platform like this.
Well, I'm not really into this for the money so maybe that's why I don't agree with you, I don't care who makes money.
I'm not necessarily stating I'm in it for the rewards (don't get me wrong, I'm not not here for the rewards if I'm to be honest with myself - just like 99% of everyone else here). I'm defining why it's a concern in the community. In fact, as best I can tell, it's generally less about the money and more about the ability for a select few to render someone's post mute and the public be powerless to counter it. Thus, the suggested changes to how flagging and downvoting work.