Steem could be policed from a central committee of moderators like Facebook does. We have that with the tech cartels. Steem could be policed, however, through a decentralized Wild Wild West. Downvoting is flagging. You can leave a comment stating why you flagged something.

Downvote Pool

As people downvote, will their downvote power and weight increase and will this second pool grow and grow, is my question. I'm guessing that if people are paid money to downvote, and if that secondary pool is not just merely Resource Credit (RC) manna, and if the downvote grows and grows, then that is potential flaw in Steem. But if this second pool is fixed, then that might be less dangerous.

Downvoting

I don't downvote. So, I don't promote that. So, you're right that we shouldn't be flagging each other like you said. Yes, decreasing author rewards down to 50% is dangerous. It might promote more interaction, engagement. However, it is risky. It is dangerous. I'm hoping things improve. I'm crossing my fingers. Hard Fork 22 might be undoing some of these things. If these things don't really work, we should revert some of these back to HF20.

Free Market

I believe in the free market. Specifically, the market can be crazy. Some people have a lot of money. Some people may be very poor. I believe in the system, generally speaking. I believe in freedoms. So, I believe in letting run around wild doing good and bad. So, we see a wide variety of content with variations of quality and quantity. Generally, quality can be measured subjectively, generally speaking. Of course, objectivity is real. But too often, people are judging quality from a point irrationality, because humans are full of bias, preference, perspectives, paradigms, beliefs, feelings, as we are not perfect. Now, hypothetically, if we were perfect, if we knew everything, then we would be able to rate the level of quality objectively. I believe in freedom over safety. I believe in smaller government. Have a lovely day. Oatmeal.