It could be automated, but would we want it to be? I don't get to see twitter's or facebook's back-end, but my guess is there is probably already a large sum of automation. Which leads to some of the very things people are complaining about. Right now, I don't see a path forward for automating moderating, meanwhile appeasing everyone. So, I think we would just see the same criticisms of HN emerge that are already present on the mainstream social networking platforms. People would just figure out a way with bots to sway the voting to suppress a voice or lift a voice artificially (something that is probably already done on twitter with people in both directions across all spectrum of opinions).
Do we want to live in a sophisticated democracy as opposed to a naïve democracy? Some would.
Would you like to be part of an information exchange and debate platform using sophisticated systems as opposed to an open billboard? Some would.
It is very doable. It was done in history and it can be done technically in many ways.
Take for example HN: before you can downvote, you must have consolidated your position as contributor. Very simple - yet affecting the result, the "experience". Much more sophisticated techniques can be used.
Malicious parties could attack a system exploiting its weaknesses: yes, this is why take precautions like testing systems theoretically and practically, and implement defence systems.
> automating moderating
The point is not to automate moderation - it is not about the work of DanG. It is about reducing the noise generated by users "in development" and boosting the signal donated by "developed" users.
In the area of "ranking according to the favouring of favoured users, recursively" is a way to implement it.
Interesting, I did not know that one had to be a 'developed' user to be able to down vote. I may have to look more into the history of this and see some examples of implementations. Thanks for the info!
I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong.