Comment by w10-1

So, is this getting incentives right?

Not really, IMO. Even when users select moderation, they should be able to transiently unselect moderation features to get the unfiltered view - to take off the glasses at any time. Otherwise, moderation can devolve to censorship in ideological contexts, and BlueSky becomes a friend to those herding opinion.

Even if users can take off their glasses, moderation will likely still suppress production of content. (Why speak if no one's listening?) But by enabling users to experiment with turning off moderation, each user will always be able to assess whether the moderation is supportive or censoring. That in turn can temper the moderators to be reasonable, since their moderation is easily discoverable and measurable.

I think this is good for groups, too. If group-wide moderation rules are definitive and users cannot peek through them, then moderation itself is a powerful position, and you'll get the usual leadership contests as people game to manage opinion. If moderation instead is weakened by being ever-consensual, there will be less gaming to control opinion.

It's better for groups to manage themselves through membership. It may be hard to get in, but once in, your voice is hearable by all, moderation notwithstanding. So weak moderation also makes group membership more valuable, which in turns makes it easier to have the conditions of entry that can help people trust each other. (Making those conditions observable and consistently applied is another question.)