If it’s like HN or Reddit then speed of burying is more important than volume. A few downvotes early on can easily bury dissenting comments / posts or change the narrative significantly.
I wonder if an account will be allowed to unmute/unblock an account, in order to downvote (block) it again in later posts. Otherwise you're looking at using a lot of blue checks to silence articles from say, NYT.
The question of thresholds is interesting: if it required a large number of votes it wouldn’t be very effective. If it doesn’t, it’s too easy to game — and even a million accounts doesn’t seem like a high bar since it could easily be rented for many votes. A large ad agency or PR firm could do that - promising all of their clients the ability to bury bad news (thinking of how much Johnny Depp alone paid) – and it’d be really easy to imagine, say, the Catholic or Mormon churches, Scientology, etc. recruiting members or even funding their Twitter Blue memberships.
That is only true for a message with high initial momentum (impact, importance,...). If you act as a decelerator/gatekeeper - in contrast to Russia's agents acting as accelerators -, then you can control a lot of things.
