The way to think about this is as a collective curation effort. We aren't privileging one perspective over another, which is what would happen with more rules around how downzapping works.

Everyone brings their own preferences and values (or lack thereof) to the curation effort and have to pay to see them implemented.

Undisciplined

In a forum where freedom of speech is respected, downzaps seem to me like a denial of free speech, because a downzap has an impact on the ranking of a post

You are touching on some difficult philosophical issues about what to do about the "commons", where my actions in the commons naturally impacts everyone else's experience.

For example, zaps and downzaps have equal effect on ranking a post.  Why are upzaps ok but downzaps not?  Why are boosts ok?

In the end, everyone has freedom of speech here, but who has the right for their speech to be heard in the commons?  It's a tough question.

Disagreement or Silencing?

> In a forum where freedom of speech is respected, downzaps seem to me like a denial of free speech, because a downzap has an impact on the ranking of a post

You are touching on some difficult philosophical issues about what to do about the "commons", where my actions in the commons naturally impacts everyone else's experience.

For example, zaps and downzaps have equal effect on ranking a post.  Why are upzaps ok but downzaps not?  Why are boosts ok?  

In the end, everyone has freedom of speech here, but who has the right for their speech to be heard in the commons?  It's a tough question.