The change
SO are going to let any registered user vote on content. Until now that "privilege" has required 100 points, a near-impossible task for a new user these days because no one ever upvotes questions and powerusers rush to answer all easy questions before anyone else can get to them (and will flag/close any other question as being off-topic).
The reasoning behind this change makes sense:
It's been a while since we last talked about the one-reputation voting change. We are still pursuing this because stagnating participation on the network is a concern for all of us, and we want to think about ways to grow the active community on the network. We have, by design, utilized rep as a threshold to award privileges and prevent bad behavior. While this has been effective in creating the current status quo, it has made participating on the network in some of the most basic ways difficult.
The response
But the post is on -143. Let's see what SO's (unpaid) jannies have to say.
Zoe (before you ask, yes she is):
The company has already been made aware of the many ways this can be abused, and the significant workload increase this will lead to when people notice, and that the tooling we have is nowhere close to capable of dealing with the kinds and volume of abuse this will cause. They have not responded to our concerns, and many mods (including multiple SO mods) have objected to the change from allowing sites to volunteer for the test to shoving it on SO. They did not care about the objections.
This response is ridiculous because:
Jannies are always welcome to not do it for free and let SO pay someone to do it. No one is giving you more work - you're unpaid, you don't have to do anything.
Oh and did I mention that Zoe's username is "Zoe is on strike"? That's right, a striking janny is still actually doing it for free and even giving feedback on new features. Good strike!
Someone else (who used to work for SO, left and yet still comments says:
Fraud: your approach is "disable association bonus and hope for the best?" Seriously? Im an r-slur but you've never done fraud before. Go out and sin, and come back when you know how to recognize it.
And a current non-striking mod says:
We did not volunteer for this experiment. It has been opposed by the SO moderators and other sites did step up to volunteer.
You're literally all volunteers lmao
Tooling does not scale for the concerns we have. It's mentioned that this is launching with new tooling, but they aren't being shared "at this junction". For moderators, that means the tooling does not exist at this point then.
Maybe if you were a paid employee then you'd be able to see this tooling.
CM [community manager] time is limited, and with focus split on new initiatives, AI content, and now this, the time they have to allocate to investigate vote fraud will decrease.
Maybe leave fraud investigations up to paid employees, like every other company.
By the way the three users who I've quoted here - all powerusers - haven't answered a single SO question between them in three years.
Stuff like this infuriates me because SO's powerusers and jannies are completely detached from the core purpose of the site yet they spend all their time stinking the place up and squabbling about meta shit. Stack Overflow is almost entirely self-moderating, these people aren't needed. If I worked for SO and had to interact with these idiots every day then I'd 
. SO needs to start just doing things and stop cucking themselves to the jannies.
Let's end with an r-slurred Jeff Atwood tweet:
Nope, the goal of SO is to answer my question.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
5 years? Try 5 months
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"SO should help people to understand how to solve problems"
Me:
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Nooooo you have to read 200 pages of documentation and the underlying computer science per word of code produced, you just have to
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
idk I think this is true. 99% of visitors like me don't participate, it just comes up in search when we google a similar issue.
I actually agree with this sentinent. the goal isn't to answer the specific question but a more general one that applies to more people
r-slurs complain because they come in trying to get free tech support without doing their job to supply enough info or narrow down the bug.
dunno if jannies are necissary tho
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I kind of agree but I think that having many similar cases with slightly differing working example solutions achieves this better than having one case with three answers and wordswordwords of pedantry about them
I'm a very ‘learn by doing' kind of guy though (r-slurred)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context