Thanks for taking the time to reply, I found myself in agreement with most of what you wrote.

I do like the idea of having more political parties in the US having a chance to participate in government. I'm not sure how effective a parliamentary system is a combating polarization. I must admit that I don't know enough about it historically to say how well it works. But brexit comes to mind when I think about polarization in Europe. I think it may be side effect of echo chambers and the global reach of the internet.

Having a wider spectrum of responses would probably be a step in the right direction. Another thing worth doing would be to hide the algorithm that determines how much a user is paid so it's less vulnerable to overt manipulations.

On the Paulie Shore effect, I'd imagine we will see a greater number of people doing this. Anonymity, protect from repercussions, and attention were all ready enough incentive for people to troll. Add a financial incentive and who knows how far that can go. I suppose having that currency be at risk might moderate it. Although having a system like that in place is also ripe for abuse. I think tone policing and political correctness inhibit our ability to explore ideas. We also run this risk of mistaking trolls and people who might be open to change their mind on an issue. But by trying to censor an idea we make the idea more attractive via the streisand effect, lots of people seem attracted to the idea of having taboo knowledge.

I think there is a lot of potential for good on this platform, you last line reminds me of a quote about capitalism i'm no doubt remembering incorrectly. But it's something along the lines of "capitalism is the best of the worst economic systems" meaning it's not great but the others are shit too.