hyperhopper

Your oversimplification makes it sound like this is just my personal preference, and not a natural tendency of humans or social media interactions.

This is not just "I like X more", this is "humans on a large scale act like probabilistic decision trees and will converge on lowest common denominator dopamine fountains without careful checks and considerations"

The latter is necessary for high quality networked media and discussion

If an account is upvoted because it's posting high- quality content, we'd expect those votes to come from a variety of accounts that don't otherwise have a tendency to vote for the same things.

No, I completely disagree and reject your premise.

Many times really high quality content will be voted for by only a small subset of the population.

In general people will vote for lowest common denominator widely appealing click bait. That type of content will get varied voters because of wide appeal. Discerning voters represent a smaller but consistent subset of the population, and this proposed algorithm will penalize that and just lead to more low quality widely appealing click bait.

What if account B only ever posts high quality content? What if everybody upvotes account B because their content is so good? What if they rarely post so it would be reasonable that a smaller subset of the population has ever seen their posts?

Your theory assumes large volumes of constant posts seen by a wide audience, but that's not how these sites work, your ideal would censor and disadvantage many accounts.

"why did my rent go up by 400 dollars?" "Because my favorite bagel spot raised prices by a dollar"

No, all they said in terms of their goals was that they needed to make a profit.

Anything else, you better have a really good source, because then the Apollo dev contradicts your story

Fuck you, don't give reddit the accolade of being honest.

They literally said they weren't trying to kill third party apps. They literally said they wouldn't do what Twitter did. They literally said any pricing would be based in reality.

Yes, this was all a lie and we now know they just wanted to kill all apps, but don't let them look even 5% less shitty by pretending they were honest about their intentions.

When you buy a ticket to see a movie at a theatre, you don't own the movie.

Correct and not letting you make up definitions or ignore reality just to support a separate point that you agree with?

Sounds like you're a bad husband.

I never said anything about it being wrong or that anybody was getting hurt.

I just said under current definitions it is illegal. Legality != morality.

According to the law or dictionaries? Yes.