@FediTips I agree with a pro-active approach. No idea technically, but let's consider that in too many huge instances, moderators experience stress and burnout. I think another possibility.
Let's assume the account receives 100 flags, disliked. Not marking it as bigot, extremist, whatever. Anyone has their own reason to flag a post/user.
It happened to me a couple days ago, when an extremist left-oriented said "better 100 dead cops each day and a global change, than nothing"...
Not for the cops, but saying "better dead than..." talking about politics, it's a very terrifying sign.
And after flags, you're warned, like a content warning "message potentially disturbing: what to do? Block the person, block the instance?"...
Not like facebook, where you can organize a big group of people reporting the user, and algorithm shuts him down. Here, EVERY SINGLE USER should see a cw (or popup or whatever) that if clicked on the post, will open: "go on reading, reply, report, block name, block instance"...
It's up to the single user. But the post's author IMHO should _not_ see they've been flagged or whatever. It's like when I've been the moderator in a Zoom room. We were all blind. One of them started to scream and insult, we muted his mic, he's screamed to the moon for minutes!

@FediTips precrime?

@stefan

Thanks, that's probably closer to what was being requested so I've replaced the issue in the post with that one.

@roomey

Agreed, diversity is needed in deciding priorities.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying "white people vote on what should happen", that wasn't the intention.

The two features listed in my post were specifically ones that had been requested in various discussions by victims of bigotry, that was the only reason I included them in this list. For example there were people saying they felt safer on platforms with reply controls, and there was concern about Mastodon's reactive moderation.

@meissda

Could you explain a bit more?