MY THOUGHTS
The person who posted would be the moderator for that post.
It would eliminate the problem of multiple places to post the same subject matter.
The post would have tags (ex : ask lemmy, meditation, gardening …), which would simplify crossposting. The post would be searched for like that.
There would be no communities.
It would make moderation much easier
It would be democratic. If you don’t like the way the conversation is being managed then go to or create another. It would be fewer clicks than creating your own community or creating your own lemmy instance.
GOOGLE AI’S THOUGHTS
Assigning moderation power by post (making the author the moderator) would prioritize personal control over content, akin to managing a comment section, but would likely cause chaos on platforms designed for community discussion. While it gives creators absolute control over replies, it risks high abuse, lack of impartial enforcement, and fragmented, unmanageable communities.
Pros: The original poster (OP) could instantly delete spam, trolling, or off-topic replies, ensuring the conversation stays true to their original intent. It empowers creators to manage their own space. Cons: Abuse of Power: Creators could delete valid criticism, dissenting opinions, or corrections, creating echo chambers. Lack of Uniformity: Rules would change from post to post, making the platform unpredictable for users. Responsibility Overload: The burden of moderation is shifted to individuals, many of whom may not want the responsibility, leading to either total lack of moderation or over-moderation. Fragmentation: Community-wide standards (e.g., hate speech policies) would be difficult to enforce consistently if every post has a different, arbitrary moderator.
This model is similar to how a Facebook post’s author can manage comments, but it is generally ill-suited for forums like Reddit or Reddit-like structures, where community moderators (mods) maintain consistent rules for a shared space.
Doesn’t sound ideal.
Moderated communities allow topics to stay on track and fit the theme of a community. It allows you to find different comms if you don’t agree with how one is being run.
By reducing it to tags, you risk topics getting flooded with irrelevant things or bad takes, meanwhile OPs get to ensure no one in the comment can argue against whatever bad take they might make.
Basically is makes the experience worse for every other user by cluttering feeds and promoting biased moderation.
Consistent community themes don’t interest me. Good conversations do. I think this is a common preference.
My system would achieve the same, but easier. Because it’s easier to post or go to a different post than to go to a different community or create your own community. Also, with tags, you would avoid the problems with having multiple places to post the same topic. Also crossposting (when your post covers multiple topics) would be easier.
I don’t see how such a risk would necessarily arise. And if it did, because switching to a different conversation (and moderator) is so easy, you’d just do so.
I’ve seen the same in communities. And who knows how often it happens? Posts just disappear.
Your arguments seem to lack substance.
What stops me from tagging something “Star Trek,” and then in the body of the post, pasting a link to some scam site selling dick pills, or creating dozens of bot accounts to do the same with every variation of tag? Nobody can stop me if I’m the only one who can moderate my posts.
You mention that its “easy to switch to another post” but fail to mention how that would work in practice. Currently, you can find a similar post inside a dedicated community easily, but without a community to sort post topics, how are posts displayed? Chronologically? By upvotes? By recent activity?
It sounds like you’re just describing a feed like Facebook or Twitter. The former being nearly impossible to find specific posts on. Instead, you either need Groups (same as communities) or to rely on the algorithm. Also imagine either of those sites without moderation.