[mytailorisrich]

Up/downvote mechanisms always end up as agree/disagree votes.

Moderation is not the same. It is not about agreeing but curating content that is not acceptable (off-topic, illegal, insulting).

Article quote: "In decentralised social media, I believe that ultimately it should be the users themselves who decide what is acceptable or not"

In my view that is only workable if that means users define the rules because, as said above, I think 'voting' on individual piece of content always leads to echo chambers and to censoring dissenting views.

Of course this may be fine if within an online community focus on one topic or interest, but probably not if you want to foster open discussions and a plurality of views and opinions.

We can observe this right here on HN. On submissions that are prone to trigger strong opinions downvotes and flagging explode.