Thanks for the hasty reply.
I was using network effect in the sense of suggesting that the more players involved the more diversified the individuals, but I see your point in terms of that usage.
I think your concerns are mostly invalid, though. Enough down votes can significantly impact problems with collusion, and this has been addressed time and time again by the dev team. And even in the worst case scenario, the system can be tweaked to mitigate their impact. I already think that there are enough inbuilt incentives on the platform to block that problem. And you didn't really acknowledge that voting power decreases overtime, throughout a day, which helps thwart collusive abuse.
What you are saying seems to indicate a lack of full appreciation for this platform and its ability to handle exigencies.
I'm simply a thinker who likes to look at the picture from all perspectives. I think the development team is great, but at the same time, criticism of the system is also justified.
Look at your own arguments against government. Do you have a lack of appreciation for government and its ability to handle exigencies?
Very smart people in the government have time and time again explained away all the problems you see in society, but does that truly invalidate your opinions about anarchy?
Don't fall into the trap of rebelling against one form of governance to blind trust in another. There's two sides of the coin for every issue.
You're a smart guy, so that's why I'm giving you a hard time. I don't even bother debating idiots.