as with any heirachal system, to find the cause of its problems the easiest and most accurate method is to look to those at its top.
on the internet, and especially within walled-garden spaces, those at the top are the moderators.
With very few exceptions that are almost always those of small communities. They are power-hungry, ambivelant, socially average to incompetent, incapable of apology curiosity or vulnerability, and/or just strait up assholes. whos only care in their self-assigned position (or assigned by server owner, which may as well be the same) is retaining enough of a community that they can feel self-accomplished.
This is likely a result of how easy it is for such people to become mods, how those whom are not like this would be less likely to attempt it, and the systemic problems with power discrepency in the moderator position.
This inevitably results in those whom are the most disadvantaged in online spaces- the poor, the dissociative, the isolated, the afraid, sensitive, and so on, many whom can do better in irl spaces if such were inclusive- being exiled, cut off, or suppressed. No matter how desperate they are, or how comparatively easy it would be for a moderation team to be inclusive of them.
Even a simple, genuine apology, is a rare thing to find from moderation.
This, hence, also results in aggressive, privildged, self-entitled, societally advantaged, naive, and/or assholes, inevitably gaining a greater position in communities. For they can simply wave a title they've earned via capitalism and the state. And/or remain calmer within the text space due to the good health they have, the fact it is not their only refuge for community, or the fact they have via privildge, luck, and/or skill been able to become established enough in the given community to be taken at face value- despite often being no better than anyone else, if not worse.
To solve this problem, without a full structural overhaul on the software side of things, there are multiple possible solutions; Communities could agree to communal rules that result in splitting up if moderators do too many harms. Moderators could agree and work toward understanding conflict resolution, inclusivity, and extreme anti-heirachal beliefs - so as to counter-balance their own power. Moderators could work toward attempts to limit their own power, perhaps taking cues from other societies that have done such. For example making the job, via communal pressure, much less enjoyable if afformentioned options aren't attempted.
And, we are sure, many other options we've not considered here.
Yet , this does not seem likely to happen soon. Most moderators love their power, and love their ability to control people, whether or not they admit it- if they didn't, they'd usually not choose to be such. If they didn't, they'd express guilt or request help when they fail to find a way to apologize or do better by individuals.
Hopefully, as the economy collapses and revolutions spread, it will quickly become apparent the current methods aren't teneble. That peoples titles and status, whether given via state or capital or server owner, are not viable methods to accuracy and good health.
That their cannot be a snappy line, title, demand. Beyond 'this is hurting me/them/us', an apology, or a thank you. That can or should cause immediate pause and reconsideration. Especially not online, where text alone is the indicator of meaning.
That people must, must, must take each individual as their own individual, and hence validate their perspective and it's value on their own terms.
Perhaps then , those of us who actually care about eachother can get somewhere. Leaving the majority of mods and their friends behind.
We do hope to put actions to words. To create a community, someday, wherein we can 'moderate' in this better fashion. Yet we don't yet. Since apparently unlike the majority of mods, we know and care that we'd cause needless harm, with our current health and ability.