The original post is paradoxical in the very way it talks about social media being paradoxical.
He observes that social media moderation is about signal to noise. Then he goes on about introducing off-topic noise. Then, he comes to conclusions that seem to ignore his original conclusion about it being a S/N problem.
Chiefly, he doesn't show how a "council of elders" is necessary to solve S/N problems.
Strangely enough, Slashdot seems to have a system which worked pretty well back in the day.
I think the key is that no moderation can withstand outside pressure. A community can be entirely consistent and happy but the moment outside pressure is applied it folds or falls.
Slashdot moderation is largely done by the users themselves, acting anonymously as "meta-moderators." I think they were inspired by Plato's ideas around partially amnesiac legislators who forget who they are while legislating.
He observes that social media moderation is about signal to noise. Then he goes on about introducing off-topic noise. Then, he comes to conclusions that seem to ignore his original conclusion about it being a S/N problem.
Chiefly, he doesn't show how a "council of elders" is necessary to solve S/N problems.
Strangely enough, Slashdot seems to have a system which worked pretty well back in the day.