The alternative is far far worse.

That's the whole point. There are many new adopters and few competent ones.

I mean to well meaning contributors, I understand the goal of vouch, I think it goes too far and you'll turn off said well meaning contributors

I certainly have dropped off when projects have burdensome rules, even before ai slop fest

These projects would rather miss out on a few good people to stop the bad ones over the alternative.

I think there are better alternatives, we'll let the market weed things out

For example, I will keep making them spin wheels and burn tokens / money, a sort of honeypot, adversarial shadowban. This is even better for disincentivizing them.

Will automate it if it ever gets bad

The earth of the expanse is 1000 times better than any time in history.

The life of people on earth doesn't seem better than people now. For connected people it seems great, but for the average joe it seemed awful.

Yes it does. You don't have an accurate understanding of the lives of people on earth now, which is largely constant pain and suffering.

Did you read the expanse? The earth of the expanse is full of crime and destitution. People apply in the tens of thousands for every lottery slot of school or jobs. People just wallow in nothingness. The people fleet earth for mars and the belt just to have a basic sense of purpose.

If we are to just have UBI. Have basic sustenance for no effort, while we have unlimited entertainment and porn at our finger tips. It would be a disaster. I would literally we rather have make work programs.

Yes. I read the expanse.

The problem is you don't understand how terrible life on earth is currently for the majority of people, you are coddled.

Your argument is built on a flawed premise that ignores the foundational role government and society play in enabling wealth creation in the first place. The counterfactual is simple: without government, without the legal and social structures upheld by a functioning society, there would be no stable mechanism for accumulating wealth at all.

Wealth does not exist in a vacuum. It is not some inherent trait of individuals that manifests independently of the structures around them. The wealthiest people succeed not just because of their individual effort but because they operate within a framework that provides enforceable contracts, property rights, regulated markets, financial systems, infrastructure, security, and a workforce educated by public institutions. Strip all that away, and they are no better off than anyone else in a lawless wasteland where power is dictated purely by brute force.

If wealth were purely a function of individual effort, we’d see people amassing fortunes in failed states or ungoverned regions where there is no government interference—but we don’t. In fact, in those places, the absence of government results in instability, extreme poverty, and the inability to conduct large-scale business. Conversely, the wealthiest individuals overwhelmingly exist in places with strong institutions and legal protections—because those things are prerequisites for wealth accumulation.

Your contradiction is actually the real contradiction. You claim that people become rich despite the government but then ignore the fact that wealth is unequally distributed precisely because the government does not intervene enough to prevent market capture by a small elite. A government that enables wealth creation is not the same as one that ensures it is fairly distributed. It is perfectly consistent to acknowledge that wealth requires government structures while also recognizing that unchecked capitalism leads to oligarchy.

So no, this isn't simplistic nonsense. The simplistic nonsense is pretending that wealth creation happens in a vacuum when, in reality, it is entirely contingent on the existence of an organized society with functional institutions.