I believe there's a middle ground that doesn't involve the forced adoption of a single subjective viewpoint of "correctness", while preserving the benefits of m

I believe there's a middle ground that doesn't involve the forced adoption of a single subjective viewpoint of "correctness", while preserving the benefits of moderation to whoever desires it. I refer to the following approach as "moderation lenses", although it's certainly been thought of before under some other name. "Moderation lenses" would operate as follows: Any person or entity can be a moderator. Moderation could be done manually or in an automated fashion, it doesn't really matter. Users would be able to opt-in (and later opt-out) of whatever set of lenses they want. The lenses they opt-in to would affect what posts they are able to see. Online communities (for example, a subreddit), could have a default set of lenses applied to newly-joined users, but as with any other lens, they would be removable by the user. One would imagine that most users would leave a "spam" lens in place. Governments would be able to produce their own lenses for things such as "misinformation", "hate speech", or whatever the evil-of-the-day happens to be. And if people want a government filtering what they see, they can add those lenses. And if they don't, they don't. Human opinion is inherently subjective, and agreeing on what is "correct" or "appropriate" across large groups of people is rarely possible. Trying to impose a single viewpoint of "correct" across millions of people is laughable.