A long while ago I read an article predicting the downfall of all unpaid internet moderation because it would attract the type of person who both has copious free time and enjoys having power over others.

Reddit during covid showed us just how true that was. Moderation was so ridiculous you'd get banned from subreddits for posts which were the same as the CDC's advice at the time they were made.

HN has largely avoided that because it has at least partly paid moderators. The worst parts are the mass flaggings which I think are still a mistake. Not least because they now hilariously happen to every one of PG's posts.

> HN is not at all "awesome" at moderating content objectively

I made no such claim.

actually, you did, although you may have deleted it by now:

"HN is awesome because of the rules and moderation"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41369717

Awesome =/= objective moderation.

I claimed the former, not the latter.

IMO, there is no such thing as objective moderation. All editorial decisions are subjective, but this is besides the point.

That’s a different statement. HN is awesome because of the rules and moderation =/= HN has awesome rules and moderation.

Those are different claims, though.