A lot of approaches to moderation seem destined to fail, afaic. I think first principles should be: 1. There is no such thing as objective moderation. The uni

A lot of approaches to moderation seem destined to fail, afaic. I think first principles should be: 1. There is no such thing as objective moderation. The universe gives us no way to conclusively prove something is good, fair or true. 2. You cannot moderate a forum at internet-scale using exclusively paid employees. 3. A tech company is not the government. There is no shame in a company looking out to protect its own good name. Some takeaways: (1) and (3) suggest a social network should admit its point of view, and moderate according to its tastes from the top-down. (2) suggests the bulk of moderation should either be AI-based, or delegated down via a hierarchy of its users. Since AI won't be capable of competent moderation for at least a decade, the primary method should be the community. (3) means that the the positioning on moderation should be heavy-handed. Eg: "If we dislike your contributions or feel you make us look bad, we will ban you. We offer no 'court of appeals', because it's an esthetic judgment." This ideology of my model is rather depressing, but the current state of the internet (compare HN or Tildes with 8chan or Gab) hints that it's better than the status quo.