The very idea that moderation could be "coherent" at network scale should be abhorrent to citizens of a free and democratic society. The only morally acceptable scale for evaluating moderation is that of the individual reader.

Any filtering of content by a third party, when it employs values not shared by the reader, is censorship. Because no two people can entirely share values, third-party filtering inevitably becomes censorship.

Filtering must be a matter of individual choice.

Does moderation need to be equated with filtering?
@J12t

Moderation might be roughly defined as any set of actions or rules, explicit or implicit, that constrain the flow of content through a communications channel.

Non-problematic moderation includes constraints intended to preserve the proper functioning of the channel. Such moderation includes limitations on the size, volume, or format of messages.

Moderation becomes censorship whenever it imposes one's personal political or moral values on others.

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

That's a silly statement, it comes from the view of a person on their knees worshipping the #deathcult

Can you understand why this is obviously true... PS. you might have to get off your knees to see this obvious truth.