@humanetech @activitypub
I'll reply to your blog posts' points later as they are different from what you summarise here, but for brevity, I'll make some takes on these points here.

My thoughts: bad ideas as I see it.

> Federated Moderation: What if Moderation was an #activitypub extension and moderation actions would federate to ease the life of mods + admins?

It already exists. There is no need to add arbitrary power structures meta-types to a protocol dedicated to communication. Implementers already have trouble interpreting the semantics of AS types and AP behaviour. Moderation belongs to a different layer.
https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-block

> Delegated Moderation: What if moderators weren't bound to instances, and could just jump in on another instance to help do the work?

Then I cannot trust a single instance. I want to trust a single, stable, mostly immutable group of moderators from my instance. I don't want some "moderation upper class" overseeing the network and trading positions, most especially with incentive (reward is not intrinsic to motivation, self-esteem or character). "Instances" currently provide clear boundaries within the network, and the freedom rests on users to reside wherever they wish. This current paradigm is optimal, and deviations as I see it are only for the worse.

> Moderation-as-a-Service: What if mods provided their services via federated @activitypub models, gained trust and reputation based on your feedback?

This doesn't make sense. There is no "one-true" moderation policy to rate against. A specific user will want a specific moderation policy, and will choose an instance who's moderation reflects it. This is and should continue to be an individual's choice. "Reputation" is reserved for Wikipedia-style structures with top-down hierarchy.

A lot of this is of the cuff, and I know you make more detailed and nuanced points elsewhere, so feel free to agree or disagree, clarify, correct, etc.