I support Hacker News moderating itself however it chooses. However, if we are looking at it as a moderation model for large, open, non-editorial platforms (Youtube, Facebook) -- which I believe should all be covered under public accommodation law -- it clearly fails. And even if when we are looking at ostensibly neutral, publicly-orientated sites like newspaper comment boards, it fails.
Hacker News moderation is not appealable, not auditable, does not have bright line rules, and there are no due process rights. It simply does not respect individual rights.
So while this moderation method succeeds for Hacker News, and perhaps should become the model for small private sites, we should not try to scale it internet-size companies. Platform companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter) and backbone companies (ISPs, Cloudflare!) need a different set of rules geared towards protecting individual rights and freedoms instead of protecting a community.
Exactly. HN takes the tyrannical approach to moderation: We're right and you're wrong. If you disagree, too bad.
The mob is happy to clean up any wrongthink the moderators happen to miss.
> this moderation method succeeds for Hacker News
I think that's a pretty generous statement. The quality of discussions around here has declined substantially over the past few years. In many ways it's even worse than Reddit.