Make it pull instead of push. Each user has way too little control over their own experience in my opinion. To me from an old-school-internet background, it’s very weird that a moderator can override what comments you’re allowed to see or not allowed to see. I much prefer Bluesky’s model, where you pick your moderators, and someone can’t override you and decide that certain comments you’re not allowed to read just because those comments happened to land within that person’s little domain after they were the first to claim the “worldnews” name for their community or whatever.
I feel like we've had a debate on this before. This would just negate the concept of communities built up by moderators. Also, in many case, instances have rules before communities. How does that system work here?
I haven’t looked at how Piefed does “feeds,” but that might be one good approach; let someone create or share a “politics” feed for example, and it can be a modification of someone else’s feed (”!news@lemmy.world but take out the Trump stuff” or “block these specific annoying users” or “ignore decisions by these two moderators"), so that it’s not a monopoly in terms of who gets to curate and control the content. You could subscribe to !betterpolitics@lemmy.world for example, and it’s just the identical posts sourced from !politics@lemmy.world, but with some users that are widely disliked banned, and then also with certain moderators who consistently make bad decisions disabled. That’s a lot harder to implement of course… IDK, this is just me thinking out loud about solutions I could see, but hopefully it makes some kind of sense.
Feeds are just made and maintained by one person that draw from a pool of selected communities. You can subscribe to a feed or follow new posts made in it. The creator doesn't curate it beyond curating what communities are visible in it. Piefeds word filters already work to mitigate content users don't want to see.