I'm not sure such a complex system of content moderation & process could so easily be federated; I'd love to see a federated system equivalent to Wikipedia out

I'm not sure such a complex system of content moderation & process could so easily be federated; I'd love to see a federated system equivalent to Wikipedia out there or one that has successfully transitioned governance like that. Email spam, by comparison, is far far less nuanced. Regardless, it'd be a new effort and wouldn't just work or be trusted year one. It'd need to be tested and refined over years and years, like Wikipedia has. I could see several nonprofits and news brands along with Wikipedia shift to becoming a set of sources of truth for different & likely overlapping topics. That shift could happen gradually, as part of a mix of monetization incentive changes and more explicit 'here's how you participate' coersion (medium is message stuff; see FB's pivot to video, or youtube algo changing how content creators create). The generated result that Google spits out could reference those and note them as inputs, including noting where they disagree or choose to include or exclude certain context. I still don't see how these ideas get funded without Google directly funding them, where algorithm transparency comes in play, etc.