Problems of current group moderation
Moderators of groups have limited time and energy. Sometimes bad actors can behave badly for quite some time before the moderators can attend to them.
Moderation is a thankless task. Moderators typically receive little reward for moderation, and sometimes much abuse.
Moderators have their own biases. As a result, sometimes those they like are moderated lightly, and sometimes those they dislike are moderated heavily.
Users typically have different preferences. Some want to see everything, others want a highly curated list.
Not all bad behavior is the same. For example, making a sarcastic remark doesn't deserve the same response as making a death threat. Yet current tools don't allow for such distinctions.
Not everyone agrees on what is bad behavior. For example, some people enjoy "black" humor on difficult topics like suicide, rape, death. Other people find such humor offensive or distasteful.
The cost to bad actors for bad behavior is typically low, generally only the cost of their time. In large groups, bad actors can impose large cumulative costs on the group, if only in the time it takes for others to block them.
Bad actors often have much more free time on their hands than most people. And it only takes a few bad actors to shout down anyone that disagrees with them (aka the "heckler's veto"). As a result, good actors tend to leave groups, leaving an increasing concentration of hecklers.
Some people aren't "bad" in any ethical sense, just stupid. They make illogical arguments, can't do basic math, have low standards of evidence, etc. They don't violate the rules, so moderators are typically reluctant to ban them. But they subtract value from the group by adding to the noise of conversations.
Bad actors sometimes coordinate to "brigade" a group, and overwhelm it with hostile posts and spam.
Instead of a yes/no block, allow users to set a price in order to receive messages from a given user. For example, if a user makes an insulting remark, the recipient could set a price of say $0.25 to receive further messages from that user.
Even taking the time to set a price is a high cost in large groups, so allow users to subscribe to other people's price lists. In exchange, the curators could receive a fee from those who subscribe to their price lists.
Allow users to set different prices for different tags. For example, someone could set a price for posts tagged "NSFW".
Those who behave badly will face increasingly high costs to communicate with the members of the group. At the limit, they will end up only talking to themselves. However, no one who wants to hear what they have to say will be prevented from doing so.
Anyone can be a curator/moderator. Disagree with a curator's decisions? Switch to a different curator. Or do your own curation/moderation.
Curators will be incentivized to curate well in order to win more subscribers.
Such a system would add to the complexity of participating in the group. Users would have to buy funds, learn to use the wallet, etc.
There are large incentives to game any system that involves financial reward. For example, curators might create a bunch of shill "heckler" accounts to incentivize other users to buy their curation services. This could be mitigated somewhat by requiring new members to pay a modest fee to join the group. Or by requiring new users to perform costly work (such as solve a complicated puzzle).
Wealthy people would be able to behave more badly than poor people. While theoretically true, wealthy people have similar advantages under the current system. And even wealthy people respond to financial incentives.
Thoughts? Criticisms? Anyone know of a group discussion system that works as I've described?