Yup, it is called establishing a reputation, positive or negative, trustworthy or untrustworthy This works well naturally in small communities, but once the so

Yup, it is called establishing a reputation, positive or negative, trustworthy or untrustworthy This works well naturally in small communities, but once the society becomes too large, BSers, liars, and scammers can just move on to a new gullible crowd. So we got social media with review & reputation management systems, and these are now, of course, promptly gamed to the max. Moreover, this gaming is being done by the very people who should be most de-amplified, in order to amplify their BS, inlcuding everyone from just trolls to professional RUS dezinformatsiya shops (that'll gather a lot of downvotes). So yes, a huge part of the solution is to de-amplify the crowd that spews Bs or deliberate lies. Sure, freedom of speech is a right, but no one has to be required to amplify you on their platform - that takes away the freedom of speech of the platform owner (e.g., if HN were required to amplify everyone, then moderation would become effectively illegal). Why does this view gain downvotes so frequently? IDK, but it seems to be mostly readers with no nuance who think that freedom of speech requires zero restrictions, so any shadow of moderation or restriction rankles them, and they are not articulate enough to state a reason, but can still hit the down-arrow.