We need more alternatives to Reddit with different moderation practices that allow competing narratives to surface. I used to view Reddit as "what's popular on the internet?", but it's definitely become more "what's the Approved Narrative?" these days and though I do think there's plenty of danger content that calls for violence or is some other form of abuse, it's frustrating that there are many subs in which questioning the Approved Narrative will get censored.

I think content moderation could be done by the community flagging problematic content. Flagged content could be temporarily hidden, with the reason it was flagged. The OP could then write a short defense of the content, and then a "jury" of randomly selected users (who are over 18) could vote on whether to permanently remove the content or to allow it. Content couldn't be flagged again for the same reason if the jury had previously approved it. There would be a public record of content removal decisions, and perhaps even a restricted way to somehow request the removed content as a matter of public record, without surfacing it into public view.

Obviously, there would need to be some experimentation to get a better system. Which is my whole point. I wish there were more systems experimenting with this.