Yes, interesting, good ideas. These fit into a system I have been developing, evolving "on paper" - called Reputas.

Basically create a system that allows leaders - thought leaders, policy leaders, security-safety leaders, etc - to be as transparent as they can by sharing and evolving (with version control to review their history of changes) their current understanding and reasoning, and present - if they have one - their arguably better solution.

There will need to be centralized bodies who are the curators, governors - moderators - of these different competing filter systems. There will need to be many - the more the better, to some degree - and they can and will learn from each other, and lead to discourse between leaders; or there will be a frontrunner that gains a large lead at the beginning - a similar trajectory like Elon Musk has lead with Tesla et al, whereby the status quo systems had no incentive to innovate and create a much better, necessary system that is better for society, for the environment. Twitter with its audience may become one such curator - however Jack is heavily bought into Bitcoin and I think that will lead him astray and not allow him to evolve Twitter's network development adequately. Facebook and Mark have the potential as well to evolve to a new system - though I think their advertising financial model (shallow and cheap mass manipulation of society) as their leading design metric will corner them as well. Neither of those founders have understood or let go of fear and control, and so they are designing, thinking, from a control and greed perspective - of scarcity vs. abundance mindset, also why I think the VC industrial complex won't last too much longer (relatively speaking) - the abnormal, e.g. unnecessary pressures it applies to organizations to scale fast and exit, and only expecting 2% of their investments to give them their ROI on 100% of their investments as another terrible, lazy investment strategy that they've confined themselves as part of their strategy to convincing LPs casino or lottery-like risk of getting an ROI after 10 years.

One goal of this system would be to allow society and peer review, and also would act as allowing the OP to gauge the state of the union (or lack therefore) - where society is at compared to their own understanding of all that is this crazy, magical, arguably infinite universe where the past-present-future all exist at the same time and there's likely universal hierarchy, a chain of command, that has evolved towards a single consciousness that some call God; or those who are passionate and interest enough to engage critically, in a non-violent way, can then engage and argue their points - to which then would give me an opportunity to further explain and counter their points.

I also think Joe Rogan's podcast model is an evolving archetype, but where individuals with such reach - and growing - as his, should hold a practice of non-violence to include reviewing and updating knowledge and thoughts from their old content, as to not be perpetuating older knowledge; a momentous task, however important and the reward will come as someone like Joe refines himself, becoming a better and better role model, and as systems are designed to fluidly support such an effort. For example, old information from when Presidential candidate Andrew Yang (currently suspended his campaign) spoke with Joe Rogan - he had updated, evolved his policies a little bit since then, primarily that the $1,000/month Universal Basic Income/Freedom Dividend (as he calls it) - would now start at 18 and go until you expire (die), whereas before his policy plan was 18 to 65 I believe, when social security would kick in; there should have been a mechanism in place, where both Joe and Andrew agree to update - or overlay the video content - so people are exposed to this updated information, and so prior, aged information, isn't perpetuated - which will only lead to confusion and people not having as accurate of an understanding.

I won't have downvotes or at least if they are as part of the decentralized systems, downvotes (for most if not all content) won't have any impact in the systems I would design.

As you brainstorm, you're right that there are different possibilities of bad actors or bad behaviour that have to be managed for - and why it's good to have more groups observing and attacking these possible patterns through evolving their own system. Verified identities of various levels will certainly be a necessary filter type - and people will have to decide what leadership they trust the most, is doing their best, is as transparent and follows adequate process for them to trust more than less.

The ultimate purpose has to be leading global society towards a healthy condition, a democratic state that supports freedom with a practice of non-violence and forgiveness. Society in general, worldwide, is generally very unhealthy - physically, emotionally, mentally, and perhaps spiritually. There is a path of healing though - I've been forced to find it and continue to struggle to venture to problem solve and heal different health issues I've had throughout my life. I still don't know if I'll make it, I cycle through becoming very suicidal due to post LASIK eye surgery I did 7+ years ago; there will be a long, thorough book, if it ever gets written.

Send me an email matt@engn.com if you want to be part of what I eventually hope to create; I currently struggle daily with chronic pain, so Hacker News is a temporary distraction each day where I can keep my mind busy and away from the pain - hopefully getting some dopamine hits and reenforcing excitement for what is possible in the future.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Edit: LOLI