I think we humans are bound to experience a uniquely negative reaction any time a non-human entity punishes us for communal rule-breaking. This makes sense, because communal rule-following is a distinctly human activity which has co-evolved to keep us alive. It's embedded deep in our evolutionary firmware, so it is dumbfounding and infuriating to encounter its enforcement by non-humans, especially (but not exclusively) when we feel that it was done in error. You are much more likely to react with anger and perhaps even violence in a situation where your mirror neurons aren't tickled by the presence of a fellow human.
Even with a robust and timely appeal process, this sort of thing is going to have a powerful selection pressure over time, weeding out any remotely controversial, provocative, or innovative expression of meaning, leaving behind a bland, conformist soup of consensus.
Automated mechanisms only really make sense for counteracting automated abuses (e.g. vote farms). Human moderation is still necessary for human abuses (e.g. harassment).
Even with a robust and timely appeal process, this sort of thing is going to have a powerful selection pressure over time, weeding out any remotely controversial, provocative, or innovative expression of meaning, leaving behind a bland, conformist soup of consensus.