Thanks for your detailed comments.

The issue isn't the voting mechanism but this systemic conditioning that posts with high payouts are "good" and posts with low payouts are "bad"

I don't personally interpret posts as good or bad based on voting patterns as I make up my own mind - we are all going to value things subjectively and differently. The entire premise of proof of brain is subjective valuation though, which has always been at the core of the design of Steem and now Hive.

Downvotes are not meant to regulate what we see on frontends. They are meant to allow us to express ourselves.

I'm not sure I can relate to this interpretation very well. I use PeakD which is, according the metrics I have available, the most used Hive front end. PeakD mirrors Steemit in that it hides posts based on downvotes received. The behaviour is virtually identical to Steemit. I personally think that the effort taken to create a post, which may involve someone expressing their heart and soul is usually massively more than the 'expression' of a downvote. I understand the idea of a downvote being expression, but it is not a particularly valuable one to me. To me it feels more like a policing action than an expression. We tend to not think of police as wandering the streets 'expressing themselves' because such free expression in that context can be dangerous - yet in a sense that is what they do.

What you're saying here, subconsciously, is that poor users who want to share their opinions are restricted by time because they must make money.

I'm saying that people are in a contest for eyeballs on this platform, as with most social networks. Some people make millions a year as 'influencers' primarily based on nothing more than that they have more eyeballs on them than other people. I am not a huge fan of this, but that is the state of the convergence of the web with capitalism as it stands today. I can empathise with people needing to feed their family, looking at vapid internet 'influencers' earning millions from their blogging - I can imagine why they might want to be part of that wealth rather than slaving in a 9-5 job they hate and that makes them old and stressed.

It is not the obligation of anyone here to fix the world through Hive, but at the same time the normalisation of downvoting for differences of opinion forces those with less stake to make a decision between their own integrity or conforming to the views of those with the most stake if they are going to generate enough upvotes to justify them taking time out of their lives to express themselves on this network. I am not so different to this myself - I have bills to pay and I can choose to invest my time in a variety of projects in every moment. I enjoy blogging and I like to share information that helps improve the world, but at the same time I can only afford to put so much time into it unless I get some financial reward from the process. I am competing with literal millionaires on other networks (and this one too) for the attention of web users. People who generate large incomes from blogging can afford to put all day, every day into their content and even hire professionals to take it to the next level. I have to compete with them and so too do all the noobs.

If they cannot make money because their opinions are unpopular, then they can't post

They are forced to conform to the views of those with the most stake who are downvote heavy. This is just the same as being forced off of youtube because your views aren't aggreeable to the advertisers or Google's executives. I know damn well that the censorship on Youtube is done with more concern for the profits of the executives than it is for actual truth - they have blood on their hands and that is part of why a significant percentage of Hive users are here in the first place, we want no part of that.

You are assuming that the person must work hard during all hours of their day and that they can't leverage their capabilities (their brain) to find other money generating means on Hive

Not exactly. I am in the same boat to some extent as the hypothetical people we are discussing. Hive rewards people for posting, that's it's primary mechanism. Why should someone be forced to abandon participation in the primary function of the website and instead make some peanuts for jogging a bit each day - just because they think differently to some folks, even when hundreds of people agree with them and upvote them whole heartedly? That is not in the spirit of community, free speech, a marketplace of ideas or simple common sense growth strategy for a social network.

This is the type of assumption that Dan did and that's why I personally found his whitepaper reprehensible and written from a privileged and ignorant standpoint. People's material desires are not greater than their convictions.

Again, I am describing myself to some extent here. I assure you that I am not a wealthy person - certainly not even close to Dan even in his early days on Steem. I don't really understand what you saying here to be honest, our views of the situation seem to be quite wildly different somehow.

They are here to share their thoughts even if unpopular and they have the capability to educate themselves about Hive and find other means to generate their income through it if they are indeed set on Hive being their primary income source.

I am talking about marketing, perception and psychology. The success of social networks, just like crypto is largely based on hype and public perception. Even small things can make or break a platform. Every person who tries Hive and finds that big players have deleted the payout that others elected to direct their way will likely go and tell their friends they have been treated unfairly. ESPECIALLY when the downvoting is done without any explanation at all and super underlined, especially, when the topic relates to scientific issues which can actually be debated with facts and evidence - but isn't.

This isn't really difficult to understand - people need to feel respected and welcome in a social space. If they aren't they won't come back and they'll tell their friends not to bother. Have you ever run a hotel? A restaurant? A bar? A club? Anything like that? In general, negative reputation builds fast. Try running an AirBnb with just a few negative reviews and you'll quickly find out that no-one visits at all. In the competitive world of social networks, things are not so different. This is being hugely denied at present in my opinion and is a huge issue here.

People do use downvotes to express themselves, just like they use upvotes. If they cannot downvote, meaning if they cannot disagree with rewards and acceptance of a concept (with acceptance presumably shown as upvotes) then they themselves are silenced.

In a sense, yes, I understand and it is a relevant point. I am not advocating for the removal of downvotes exactly.

that having a negative opinion of something should not be conveyed (everything should be positive and if you criticize anything you are out).

I understand, yes, balance requires both negative and positive to be given acceptance. This is something I have specifically taught for nearly two decades.

Everyone has their own views of the voting process and how they want to see it used. I personally want to see it used to facilitate proof of brain in a relatively innocent and friendly way. I like the idea that a community gets to share ideas and get a reflection of their value via consensus, I see this as a valid way to filter ideas that others might like to reference. The wisdom of the crowd. I have personally, mostly, only ever downvoted on bid bot usage because they violate the principle of proof of brain - other than that I am mostly ok with letting the chips fall where they may as a result of upvoting.

The spirit of positive support is infinitely more attractive to people than is the punitive feeling of being dominated. No-one goes to a social network in order to be shut down or rejected, to my knowledge anyway. My suggestion has always been to use downvotes with respect and for the health of the community it would be a good idea for downvotes to be made more visible, so that the wider community can understand how they are being used and why.

Exposure of the patterns involved will enable the community to optimise norms and enhance functionality. At present, we do not have this. We have high visibility of upvotes and no equivalent for downvotes, meaning that downvotes take on a more nefarious light than perhaps you think they should. Holding downvotes up to the light on an 'untrending' list might enable those receiving downvotes to feel that the community at least has an opportunity to help them out and to ensure they feel recognised. Without this, many are likely to just rage quit and label Hive as something you don't want it to be perceived to be!