I'm not sure I'm completely understanding your suggestion.

So why not delegate the actual role of content removal to the OP?

...and...

If some OP is being silly, flag it for the mod to review.

Does this mean you're proposing not to eliminate the current mod structure/mechanisms, but to make OP essentially a "junior mod"? As in, OP would have the power to ban users or delete comments of others replying to their post, but if enough others felt the OP was being too aggressive, they would escalate to the regular mod that would strip OP of their "junior mod" powers?

Enabling the OP allows all users to decide who to interact with based upon actions of individuals posting instead of being victims of anonymous and random third party mods.

I'm not seeing how this solves the "inept handling of flags, and sadistic narcissists". If anything it would make it worse because each OP becomes and unvetted mod. As an example: if they are racist, they let other racist comments stand and delete/ban users that oppose racism.

If you don’t like someone’s comment, just remove it.

How is that not a huge risk of abuse of OP? If each OP is a mod for their post, where is the standard for posting rules? It would be entirely subjective based on each OP. In one post you might be able to criticize the a government but an another post that OP may believe that criticism of government is not allowed and ban/delete other posters.

I care about getting real people to post niche content and engage openly far more than anyone else present, especially the toxic pedantism and reasons people get discouraged.

I'm not a mod, but my guess is that the far more toxic aspects are mostly invisible to us because mods filter that stuff out already. Every now and then I look at the modlog on a popular community and see absolutely bizarre stuff some toxic posters post. Removing the current mod structure and replacing it with what I'm understanding your suggest is means all of that garbage comes through because that would now be the responsibility of each OP for their post with junior mod powers.

Am I misunderstanding part of your suggestion?

Yes, misunderstanding. I mean the OP would only have control of removal of comments on their individual post with no banning or broader context intended or implied.

The edge case of OP abuses of this behavior then become evident between individual users. This mechanism will deanonymize negative people naturally when their sadistic narcissism is no longer confined to passive aggressive comments and voting and instead emerges from replies removed from their posts. When anyone is a bad OP, it gives the commenting user the chance to see it directly and block the OP, effectively culling the bad OP from the platform through ever isolated interactions with fewer and fewer people instead of anonymizing their bad behavior in comment replies and voting. The user that had their comments removed would flag the OP if they feel like mod attention is needed for abuses.

Just the existence of the option to remove someone's comment is likely enough to lessen the feelings of negativity felt by those that post.

Lastly, it is distributed moderating which is about as on-platform of a policy as is possible for the fediverse. In an abstract sense, the OP's participation in moderating their own posts increases the resolution and depth of cultural norms and ethics because there will be reputational social consequences.

The only element I would add is a minimum amount of participation and account stability with a couple of flags at the community moderation and admin levels that disable the feature when needed.

Again, it is just the power of removing comment replies on the OP's original posts.

This mechanism will deanonymize negative people naturally when their sadistic narcissism is no longer confined to passive aggressive comments and voting and instead emerges from replies removed from their posts.

So if an OP doesn't remove racist comments from other posters is that because OP is racist or is that because OP doesn't log in often and therefore isn't there for their junior mod responsibilities.

The edge case of OP abuses of this behavior then become evident between individual users.

If abusive OP removes otherwise fine comments, how will other users see OP is doing this abusively?

When anyone is a bad OP, it gives the commenting user the chance to see it directly and block the OP, effectively culling the bad OP from the platform

What prevents bad OP from just registering again under another username when they are on enough individual block lists sidestepping every individual user's block of them?

The user that had their comments removed would flag the OP if they feel like mod attention is needed for abuses.

So the regular mods would then have to review every removed comment by OP and then decide if OP was justified? And this would happen for every post with dozens or hundreds of OPs? I can't imagine how regular mods would keep up with that.

Lastly, it is distributed moderating which is about as on-platform of a policy as is possible for the fediverse.

If I'm running a Lemmy community, I don't want want rando posters deciding what content is allowed there. Maybe something an individual OP thinks is off topic (and delete a comment), I, as the community mod, would deem entirely appropriate.

OP’s participation in moderating their own posts increases the resolution and depth of cultural norms and ethics because there will be reputational social consequences.

There are troll posters that don't care about social consequences and will simply create a new account to continue doing their trolling if their current troll account is blocked. There are a number of fairly famous trolls on Lemmy that do this i.e. UniversalMonk or whatever their current troll account is called.

You seem to think mods actually do stuff. All mod actions are harmful. If the community is not flagging stuff in the first place, taking acts is a shit mod every time. The job is to be a janitor. There are no people doing any of these things you are talking about at the level of mods. Admin, yes, mods, no. It is this type of misrepresentation of the task that is a primary problem that is addressed here. Anyone that believes themselves important or micromanaging is missing the point of social media. Such adversarial stupidity is what drives away real people. One demented self obsessed fuckwit in one obscure community is more than enough to drive most people away from an entire platform. When they make any genuine post or comments that result in abusive mod actions. Those drive people away. Every comment and post made in good faith is valid. I reject all authoritarianism. A citizen has a right to all information, a right to skepticism, a right to error, and a right to protest in all nonviolent forms aka the right to offend. They have no right to infringe upon the rights of others.

For instance, I do not like how you respond. Itemized attack is not being a good neighbor. If you were a neighbor IRL I would probably avoid you. As a mod, I will not address it, but that very well may be the difference of interaction that pushes someone away from participation, and if removing your comment produced another genuinely kind neighbor that is pleasant and positive, fuck yeah I am all for them doing so. Purge every interaction that leaves one feeling negative afterwards. That is a fundamental human right, just as much as it is to live with the consequences.

In game theory and the prisoner's dilemma, every negative action makes everyone worse off. I do not go looking to fight or take action. I will respond adequately when required, but every action taken brings everyone down because negative feedback cannot produce positive outcomes. It is always attenuation.

Often the best communities are the ones with inactive mods.

For instance, I do not like how you respond. Itemized attack is not being a good neighbor.

Responding to your points are not an attack. In fact, its a sign of respect that I'm reading your words, considering your position, and interacting with you to further understand your ideas. If someone doesn't understand a system you're proposing, how do you expect them to learn and understand if questioning how your system works is considered an unwelcome attack?

Purge every interaction that leaves one feeling negative afterwards.

You...want to erase any comment that someone makes that you subjectively makes you feeling negative? And merely questioning your premise is negative? I can't imagine holding a position or an opinion that I'm not willing to explain or defend when challenged on it. What kind of person would I be if I form an opinion at a single point in time with the information I have, and never consider any ideas which may challenge my positions or assumptions? Why would I want to remain ignorant if someone may have more information or experience with a particular topic than I do? Why did you even bother asking for the opinions of others if the only opinion you'll accept are ones that completely agree with you?

In your original post you ended it with the sentence "What are your thoughts?". In the future perhaps you'd be better served writing it as "What are your thoughts? Nothing I deem negative is welcome."

You seem to think mods actually do stuff. All mod actions are harmful.

This is what I needed to see to understand your position. You don't need to answer or respond to any of my questions from above. I'll leave you to your thread. I hope you have a good day, neighbor.

Now I see the disparity clearly. This was intended as an abstract concept. It occurred randomly a few minutes before initially posting it. It was not well mapped or thought out at all. I was simply jotting down a very rough draft of ideas. I think they are sound overall, but this was breakfast napkin fodder. That is why it kinda makes me uncomfortable when someone breaks things down in detail.

I'm just addressing several instances of frustration I have had between Reddit and here over the last 5 or so years. When I say you were making me uncomfortable, yeah it does feel negative, because I'm just wanting to pull out the guitars and improvise without anyone paying too much attention. I don't expect anyone to take me seriously, and stating that you are doing so is indeed a complement. Thank you. For me, an idea like this would need to be something I mull over for a month or more in the background before I would feel confident discussing it on that level. It does not matter to me for that kind of attention.

The more I think bout it, this is the kind of change that could potentially reshape how platforms like this operate. If this were well implemented, it would alter the whole landscape in ways that force others to adapt. It creates real peer pressure and accountability in ways that exist in the real world but not online. It is not a 1:1 comparison, but it is a step in a new direction that increases social complexity through accountability. Everyone knows that needs to be addressed and to do so without the identification schemes of surveillance states and in a democratic way would be a big deal.

Anyways, I was trying to create the contrast of how I really felt to how a mod should act. Sorry if that point missed the mark. In reality, I like the perspective of being a selfless janitor mod because it motivates me to be more mindful and less reactionary; to be my true self. That self would not remove any such reply as a user or as a mod. Having the option to remove comments everywhere would take the edge off of the sharpness. Still, if removing some well intentioned comments at times encourages others to participate, yes I still think it is the best solution for them to have the option. Plus when someone is being abused, they should have the option to take action immediately. In other words, I often argue abstract points that are not necessarily my own personal perspective or view. Like half of me gets discouraged by people's negativity, but the other half is because this place lacks the depth to engage on more niche interests in line with where I am at in those subjects.

Hopefully that helps ground my intentions better.

Hopefully that helps ground my intentions better.

It does, and I very much appreciate you taking the time to explain your goal and help us both communicate better with each other.

I wasn't trying to be needlessly hypercritical of your idea, especially because I didn't know it was in the early "napkin" phase before you had a chance to sort through the particulars. What would have helped me understand would be some language in your original post describing it was still in an early stage, and if you were to disclose if you were willing to have your ideal challenged yet or not. When you last line actually called for thoughts, I took that as an invitation to dig in and learn where you were going with it. I had assumed you had a fully realized system and I just wasn't understanding your methods for controlling for what I saw initially as shortcomings, so I was asking probing questions to see how your system addressed that.

I'm all about spitballing on an unformed idea or an early version of something fully knowing it isn't complete or may have a fatal flaw in its early form. Sometimes finding a nugget of an idea or a concept is the starting point, and then the real work is building the system around it to overcome an unintended side effect. All ideas are welcome in that kind of collaborative space and some really interesting things can come from it.

After you've had more time to think about your idea, I'd be happy to discuss it with you again in the future.