Thank you for the work you are doing. Although I acknowledge that moderation is absolutely required to keep online communities on track, I also believe that mo

Thank you for the work you are doing. Although I acknowledge that moderation is absolutely required to keep online communities on track, I also believe that moderation should be fully reviewable. The best approach I've come up with is that moderation results in a label (such as "spam", "hate speech", "incivility", "misinformation", etc...) being applied to a user's problematic post. New users to an online community would have a standard set of filters applied to their account to achieve the default "moderated view", but would have full control to manage their filters and see (or not see) whatever content they want. It's absolutely terrifying how welcoming people are to let large central actors dictate what they are allowed to see and hear. As an example, during the whole GME situation last year, the WallStreetBets discord server was taken down for "hate speech", conveniently at the same time that community was causing millions of dollars of losses for certain corporations. If you normalize the unquestionable removal of content, it will be used to suppress content that is contrary to the interests of powerful central actors.