> The key is that each community needs to moderate itself. The second you give one entity centralised or external control over moderation it can be used for terrible things.
Do you have any examples of this in practice? I'm not saying I for "1 person has all the power" but I'm not aware of any community that doesn't require 1+ moderators who have the power to hide/remove/block/etc, even HN has that.
In traditional fora/irc/whatever or even reddit to some extent (subreddit moderators follow the pattern, admins do not) the moderators are the founders of the community or are selected by then community via social processes. The structure resembles a village. Mastodon is the most clear example. Mostof the small servers are their own community with a common interest, usually funded by its members directly or by someone doing it to henefit the members. 'If you don't like it, leave' is a valid sentiment because the moderators are not holding your social network hostage and don't get to choose which other communities you can see or participate in.
In the facebook/tiktok/google/etc model, moderators are minimum wage workers with moderation objectives set by people who own the platform to satisfy advertisers or other central authorities. The structure resembles a mall or maybe a state. The penalty for non-compliance is isolation, and in many cases for facebook and google restriction of access to real services in the real world.
HN fits neither neatly, but is slightly more towards the first.
Add to that, dang also has the power to unhide, unflag, etc. when he notices brigading. Giving the reins entirely to the community totally works for a very small community. Not the whole internet.
Do you have any examples of this in practice? I'm not saying I for "1 person has all the power" but I'm not aware of any community that doesn't require 1+ moderators who have the power to hide/remove/block/etc, even HN has that.