Yeah. Several things mentioned here. One, people struggle. Two, people can do things like join Hive, Steem, Blurt, etc. Third, jerks come like you said. Bullies crash the party. That's why we can't have nice things so to speak. Fourth, people upvote which is good.

Sadly and strangely, fifth, people, some being dolphins and whales and maybe even sharks, come in and they sometimes begin starting trouble in the neighborhood. They cause problems like I said in number three, they crash the party. But specifically, they flag, they downvote.

That brings up the debate regarding whether or not downvoting should be allowed or not. This post in particular would be a good argument or rebuttal to the failure or the problems of downvoting. This is a good example. I don't like downvotes myself. I'm not going to absolutely say there should never be downvotes. I don't downvote people.

This article here is a good highlight to why we should have no downvotes or to how it can sometimes be abused. I guess there would need to be an alternative to downvotes or other systems in place to counter spam, trolls, abuse, trafficking, child porn, illegal things, very bad things, imaginary hate speech so to speak (I might be joking about this one), etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, and/or perhaps maybe not. I don't know exactly as it is possible the free market can counter bad things to some extent.

Or in some ways, you can't exactly always and completely stop bad things. Downvoting may be there in part as a desire to stop bad things. And I think that is nice. Downvotes can stop bad things and it can also stop good things and good people as mentioned in this post. So, that is where the debate is. What is the lesser of two evils, the potential evils of downvotes or the potential evils of not having a way to downvote anything at all?

I was unable to post this on Blurt. Maybe the comment was too long or maybe it is just technical difficulties for a particular app of Blurt World.