[swayvil]

I would nuance that system a bit.

Replace "moderator" with "any peer".

Replace "block" with "vote". (And that vote could be as simple as "up down" or maybe something more sophisticated)

Now everybody you meet (every "peer") has a "rating". Based on the cumulative voting of yourself and your peers.

A peer that you upvote, his votes are weighted-up in that cumulative rating calculation.

A peer that you downvote, his votes are weighted down.

So we have peers, votes and a cumulative rating calculation.

And then we filter out view by rating.

Voila! Personalized decentralized moderation.

[nathan_compton]

This doesn't really work because it doesn't allow a moderator to set the tenor of a community. People can filter out individual messages, but a dedicated set of bad actors can turn a community into swiss cheese or undermine discussion just by spamming, baiting and trolling and taking advantage of the variance in the level of tolerance for the bad behavior.

Communities function when there is a standard to which the community members adhere and when bad behavior is uniformly moderated away. Making each individual have their own moderation bubble is a recipe for incoherence, even with the improvements you suggest. Its also a lot of work.

[8note]

That is to say, every community is for meme pictures