pull down to refresh
In the case of downzaps versus boosts, it seems that erring on the side of allowing visibility is better than erring the other way.
What I mean is: it's better to allow a scammer to boost and get visibility, than it is to allow a strong downzapper to hide content.
Reason: the tool we use to banish scammers can also be used by scammers to banish valuable content they don't want others to see.
Imagine a scenario where someone posts about a flaw in a project or bad behavior, if the owner of the project can banish such a post by heavily downzapping.
Don't we run greater risk to the community by allowing a strong power to hide information than we do by allowing a strong power to boost information?
This only works with brigades. So having an unpopular opinion against a mob of fanbois with high trust score will mess you up. But nothing prevents you from posting again? But what's the point if there is a non-receptive majority?
Information wins, just boosts don't?
Thought about the top boost demand-response theory. It would be a great way to maximize territory revenue to have scammer sats try to outbid honest boosts.
Morally, I think the downzap is better - because do we really want to make money off scammers trying to get victims?
I was pondering something else: Do downzaps go 70/30 to territory and rewards like fees? Would be better if these go 100% to rewards IMHO, because 70% is a huge incentive for territory owners to encourage crap content.