@PabloDiscobar Personally I also like a more granular reaction system (like, funny, informative, hugs, rolleyes, mad etc), like many BBS systems or Discord has. But there's something to be said for the simplicity of just thumbs up and thumbs down. I remember when YouTube changed its star rating system to a simple up/down vote because the vast majority of people either gave a video five stars or one star. So a more granular system could end up being largely unused.
I have often wondered about whether it might be an idea to have hard limits on the number of upvotes and downvotes a post (and potentially a user) can get. If, for example, a post could only ever get a maximum of (let's say) 100 upvotes and (let's say) a maximum of 10 downvotes (and the reputation of a user was capped at, say +1000 and -100), that might still be sufficient for a ranking algorithm to surface highly rated posts and bury low-rated posts, but also discourage people from posting low-quality memes to build up their reputation into the millions. (I think the maximum positive score needs to be commensurately higher than the maximum negative score to reward positivity more than negativity.)
With respect to hiding poor quality content, people could set a threshold level at which a post appears for them. Eg, "show me all post with a rating > 0... or 10... or -10". or "Hide by default all posts/comments by a user with a reputation of less than -50". Posts/comments that do not meet that threshold would be collapsed by default.