The consensus is all the stuff that doesn't get downvoted (or is downvoted less).
Someone can arbitrarily downvote a few things, but they have to choose what to downvote. No one has enough downvotes to blanket everything, or even most (maybe more like 1% in extreme cases).
We'll have to agree to disagree here. That's not "consensus" in the slightest. Stuff that doesn't get downvoted or is downvoted less can happen for multiple and varied reasons.
Reasons as if the content of that "stuff" has not been seen by anyone or only seen by a minimal audience of true peers with the sufficient awareness and low HP stake as to know beforehand of their lack of power & influence and the uselessness of their downvotes to disagree, censor or cause harm to all those who show ideas contrary to their way of thinking.
Or that stuff so bland, so innocuous, so useless, so from a docile and servile herd that only seeks to fawn, flatter and please to the most powerful stakeholders with high HP stake to ingratiate themselves with them and earn favors and privileges for the stupid things they are forced to publish in order not to be questioned, punished and eventually ostracized if they dare to publish really interesting and important "stuff" with a minimum dose of controversy and critical thinking that really will motivate and make people think.
In my opinion only that kind of "stuff" is what doesn't get downvoted or is downvoted less. And it also has nothing to do with consensus at all.
I really don't know what do you refer to or what do you want to mean with that of "they have to choose what to downvote."
Over here it is clear, evident and notorious that all those addicted to spread downvotes are only those wealthy individuals with high HP, influence and power to try to manipulate, alter and skew the volume of the content published on the platform by its users only in favor of their own agenda and petty interests. No one else downvote shit here anywhere.
Many of you use downvotes as a retaliation tool. Others as a way to force their own whimsical, political, economic or philosophical agenda on others. And many others as a mere form of malevolent amusement by causing damage, confusion and disappointment in poorer people who does not think in the same way as you. That's what I see as the closest thing to a "consensus" of what is really happening here.
Yeah, if you have read carefully everything I've said in this comment. Define me now what the hell are extreme cases?
Cheers!!
That's extremely unlikely for anything with large payout.
It's really very simple. People have only a limited number of downvotes and most don't even use all of those. Only a VERY, VERY small amount of content ever gets downvoted. For some reason you are fixated on that and ignoring the large majority that does not get downvoted, and therefore in effect gets a nod from the stakeholder base because for whatever reason no one objects to it.
Extreme cases are the very, very largest stakeholders with a few percent of the stake (I'm one of the largest and I have a little over 1%). But with downvotes you only get 25% vote power, so someone with 1% of the stake can only downvote 0.25% of the upvotes.
The majority of stuff can't be downvoted heavily, and in practice it's far more than that (90-95%+ that is NOT downvoted). People have to choose. When they choose something to downvote, that is a VERY strong indication of disagreement. You don't have to agree there should be disagrement, but recognize it for what it is.