Here is the essential problem with the "humans are the algo" concept, that is typical of anything too strictly moderated.
Humans generally find anything that is novel, that is stridently and confidently formulated, or that challenges their previous assumptions, as _unpleasant, scary, upsetting_. Humans, in other words, don't enjoy being confronted by anything that forces them to think. It's mental *work*, and therefore painful.
There is a subset of humans that have simply become used to constantly challenging their own assumptions and regularly reaching for new information or discoveries (engineers, scientists, political analysts, evangelists, etc.), that have built up a tolerance to this mental pain. Like boxers, they have taken so many hits, over and over, for so long, that they no longer flinch or run away.
But they are a very tiny minority, internally-driven by an insatiable curiosity.
The thing that made the Internet (and now makes X and co.) so interesting, is that the most-public content was primarily determined by such intellectual boxers. Everyone else had the chance to witness this match, comment on it, share it with others, etc. but the idea that they contribute to it, or that they _value_ it, is wrong. The only thing they do is observe, support their own side, or try to prevent the match.
Putting the witnesses in charge of determining who is allowed to spar, or who a potential sparring partner might be, invariably dumbs and numbs the debate down to the level that the viewers find comfortable: an echo chamber. A love-in. This invariably prevents new entrants to the boxing ring (out of fear that they might not agree with the people already there) and — ironically — causes those same witnessses to eventually wander off, in search of a boxing ring that contains an actual boxing match, rather than a shadowboxer.
Because it's painful to watch people fighting, but it's also interesting.