pull down to refresh
Yep, it's a powerful and valid use of money to moderate content.
I'm interested to see what norms develop around this. Occasionally, I check the top downzaps and boost stuff back up if I want it to regain visibility.
Is it a valid way of moderating content? Why should someone else's downzaps influence post visibility for me?
There is certainly an interesting framing of the front page of any message board as "The Commons". I'm sure someone has already written something about this somewhere.
Why should someone else's upzaps influence post visibility for you?
I think it would be cool to be able to SUBSCRIBE to people's downzaps.
i.e. - if someone downzaps, have it show up in your notifications.
(someone in particular, not every downzap)
?
That could sort of happen mechanically if trust-based feeds were reintroduced and you developed negative trust with someone else.
They shouldn't, necessarily.
I do prefer the personalized feed based on bilateral trust, at least conceptually.
Still, absent other information, upzaps - downzaps will be a decent signal of quality if your preferences align with those of the zappers.
It does seem to me that people see downzapping as a tool for activism (viewpoint manipulation or targeting ideological opponents), as opposed to a tool for signaling personal dislike.
That makes sense. If I see something I personally don't like, it's easy enough for me to ignore it.
But if I see something that I not only dislike, but don't want others to see, then I may choose to downzap it.
All in all, I think it's pretty effective for viewpoint suppression. I don't remember seeing some of these posts. Unless I catch it on
Newat just the right time, I probably won't engage with it.