I would like a system whereby the individual users likes and interests are used to weight everything. What we have now everywhere is basically a "majority of the moment" sorting and censoring the comments for me. I don't know who that really serves.

If the system served me, I wouldn't have to see comments from some whackadoo who feels offended because I wrote about laughing at a cop for not wearing a mask in a crowded retail establishment where everybody else was wearing them.

In my preferred system, comments from people I've upvoted in the past (and people they've upvoted in the past, and so on...) would appear more highly ranked than random nobodies. Likewise, if I've downvoted someone in the past, their comments would be ranked very low and might not appear at all if I've downvoted them enough.

This is more like real life, where people generally only hang around other people who are agreeable to their world view instead of surrounding themselves with disagreeable folks. I think a system that separates people could work wonders for social media. Let all the racists hang out together. Let all the whackadoos and Karens hang out together. What do I care?

In real life, if you've got extreme racist views, you can go hang out with other racists. But to find these like-minded racists, you'll have to churn through lots of potential racists - who may often turn out to actually be anti-racist - to find your group to hang out with. In the process of doing so, a lot of people are going to question why it is that so many people dislike their racist views. And the ones that stick through it are going to know that they hold pretty extreme views relative to the rest of society.

In contrast, the existing social media platforms have a way of making it feel like you're right, and a lot of people are supporting you (doesn't matter whether it's 1% of society, or 99%). Inside your filter bubble, you're not an extremist, and you don't have to encounter very many anti-racists on your search for like-minded racists. When you do, you've got your fellow racist keyboard warriors backing you, and some people even enjoy getting into these arguments.

I think the system you're proposing works well for hobbies and interests like tech or sports. If people who play football aren't aware of what's going on in the world of soccer, it doesn't really matter a great deal. But society - at least a democratic society that depends on informed voters - is worse off if a large number of people get together and encourage each other to think that Hillary Clinton is running a pedophile ring in the basement of a pizza store in Washington.

tl;dr - because it encourages political polarization, which is bad for democracy

I suppose part of the reason why current systems don't do this is because I imagine it'd be quite a bit heavier on the servers to calculate these things for every individual user...

I think, in the end user driven " rapid content curation " is the problem itself.

All toxic twists aside: The content we all need may not be the most comfortable in terms of how much time we need investing getting the info. I won't upvote content I haven't read, because it seems too long, or worse I will upvote the content for the first paragraph only.

Some things cannot be condensed into a comfortable chunk, but any voting system selects for that. Inherently. Because of the dopamine game, we adapt our expectations and then the content adapts to us.

I doubt there will be any "self regulatory" approach to this, which works to our collective benefit. Same with free market bla, bla... All darwinian systems don't care about beauty, stability, right and good, and particularly, they don't care about human wellfare at all.