Your first three points are blind assertions without supporting justification or basis. All have been 1) identified as
known issues for spammers (e.g., HN used to publish its block list, it no longer does, based on observed response, which mirrors experiences at many other sites), and 2) the workarounds given. You don't accept either the fact of the first or the utility of the 2nd, however you're on parlous ground in doing so.
The fact that some spammers overcome some countermeasures in no way demonstrates that:
- All spammers overcome all countermeasures.
- That spam wouldn't be far worse without those countermeasures.[1]
- That removing such blocks and practices would improve overall site quality.
I've long experience online (going on 40 years), I've designed content moderation systems, served in ops roles on multi-million-member social networks, and done analysis of several extant networks (Google+, Ello, and Hacker News, amongst them), as well as observed what happens, and does and doesn't work, across many others.
Your quest may be well-intentioned, but it's exceedingly poorly conceived.
________________________________
Notes:
1. This is the eternal conflict of preventive measures and demonstrating efficacy. Proving that adverse circumstances would have occurred in the absence of prophilactic action is of necessity proving a counterfactual. Absent some testing regime (and even then) there's little evidence to provide. The fire that didn't happen, the deaths that didn't occur, the thefts that weren't realised, etc. HN could publish information on total submissions and automated rejections. There's the inherent problem as well of classifying submitters. Even long-lived accounts get banned (search: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...>). Content moderation isn't a comic-book superhero saga where orientation of the good guys and bad guys is obvious. (Great comment on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26619006>).
Real life is complicated. People are shades of grey, not black or white. They change over time: "Die a hero or live long enough to become a villian." Credentials get co-opted. And for most accounts, courtesy of long-tail distributions, data are exceedingly thin: about half of all HN front-page stories come from accounts with only one submission in the Front Page archive, based on my own analysis of same. They may have a broader submission history, yes, but the same distribution applies there where many, and almost always most submissions come from people with painfully thin history on which to judge them. And that's assuming that the tools for doing said judging are developed.