> Voting certainly has its problems, but the alternative is [giving] trolls and spammers free reign. I would replace "voting" with "moderation." Voting mechani

> Voting certainly has its problems, but the alternative is [giving] trolls and spammers free reign. I would replace "voting" with "moderation." Voting mechanisms on conversational sites are a form of moderation; so are actual moderators. And, of they're not mutually exclusive. > Even in its current state, I find Twitter borderline unusable, because > 95% of posts are worthless noise. I think Twitter tried to replace moderation with curation -- in theory, you're only going to see posts from people you follow, giving you direct control (and responsibility) over the amount of noise on your timeline. In practice, of course, Twitter goes back on that implicit promise in the name of engagement. Twitter itself injects things you don't have direct control of onto your timeline -- not just promoted tweets, but "people you follow liked this" and "someone you follow replied to this tweet" and other such dubious nonsense -- and also lets people you follow inject things onto your timeline through retweets and quote tweets. But, I think the original idea of "give you the tools to curate what you see" was relatively sound, although it should have implemented LiveJournal-esque "only allow replies from people I follow and/or who follow me" type filters very early.