It just takes the first 3-4 viewers to downvote you to prevent the next 10000 people from seeing what you said. There's no downside to downvoting just because you don't like what someone says, even if it's true.
And usually no amount of corrections can outshout a lie/mistake with 100+ votes.
It will be hard to design a formula that can only be gamed by making quality contributions.
A quality discussion requires parties who disagree, exchange of ideas and facts and ideally some kind of eventual agreement.
The hardest part is to make it enjoyable to use.
Let people regularly vote on which prompts should be added/removed, and have the AI justify all of its decisions, show which information it used etc.
4chan was great in 2015 precisely because anyone could comment, but it's a young man's website in that scrolling through a 300 comment thread to find the worthwhile parts of the discussion will require upwards of fifteen minutes, whereas on Reddit or Hacker News most of that sorting is already done. This does have censorial effects, so it isn't ideal for controversial topics like politics, but it's better for almost everything else.
You can get there in days if you just spot a few bandwagons to hop on.
> I post things I know won't be well-received here all the time and it's quite rare for a comment to go below -2 karma, but comparatively common for these sorts of comment to get flagged despite not breaking any rules.
Yep, there's no downside to frivolously downvoting/flagging: It just takes a 2-3 people to hide your comment from the majority of the users as soon as it's posted, easy for a PR firm with paid people watching a topic like hawks.
Sometimes when I get insta-downvoted in a heated topic, if I delete my comment and repost later, the first few votes are positive. So it's clearly dependent on luck/time, which it shouldn't be.
I and others suggested this years ago: Maybe votes shouldn't have any effect for the first 12 or 24 hours.
