" it tends to fall down when protecting unpopular individuals against the community turned mob."
I have experience with that given I got my early karma countering many popular people here with downvote mobs. I had no idea I was doing that, either. Never seen their names before. Just saw some mis-information that I'd correct. Dan hints in the article exactly what worked for me: just delivering the information in a logical way with sources that invited people, often engineers, to work out what was true for themselves. The folks with mobs used rhetoric and argument from authority. I used evidence. Eventually, most of the grey comments went dark again with some folks in the mob going grey. They mobbed less often, too. I was also told about a pattern where some hot-heads read threads earlier with some calmer folks (maybe older or more experienced) coming in later. Happened with most of mine, too.
So, you can't stop the fact that they'll show up. You can diminish their power by simply remaining civil and informative with evidence backing up your claims. Also, I try to use links that maintain the same qualities. If it's a political topic, it won't help to link to a site that's 100% biased in a specific direction. Biased or rhetorical sources likewise get dismissed. Fortunately, most of my arguments were technical. Many good sources for that.
I'll also add that it helps to remember the mobs on these sites represent cliques on these sites, not people in general. Most people I've met aren't much like folks on HN, esp the aggressive ones. It helps to remind myself that what's going on in these online forums might just be representative of their culture, attachments, traditions, etc. I don't internalize it. Still introspect about it since there are many times where I can learn something or improve myself. Doing this is a tough skill to develop. I think it's a necessity on the Internet given how much negativity is there, even waves of it at once. It will still tax you but a lot less than before.
"Hacker News moderation is not appealable, not auditable, does not have bright line rules, and there are no due process rights. It simply does not respect individual rights."
We had more of that on Lobsters. That was part of the founder's experiment with the site. It was initially really different. Mostly due to our vetting process we did for invites with strict controls on quality and private messages to people. Eventually, did a mass invite bringing in all kinds of people. Many of them aren't doing vetting so much as just telling people about a site they like. The result is the site is now more like Hacker News than it was.
There's differences for sure. I just think a lot of the problems are inherent to bringing in a lot of people from many different places and perspectives onto a tech site with open-ended discussions. They covered a lot of this in the original article, though. I won't repeat it. I just think more rules, even more accountability, won't change it.
If you want the latter, turn on showdead to find most of what they moderate away is garbage. There's some filter bubble on specific political topics that aren't popular here. They're tiny percent of the comments, though. Based on volume, I'd say moderation here is pretty light-handed in general. I mean, if you look at New repeatedly over a day, you'd question how the heck some control-freak moderators could even keep up with it at all. I stopped looking at New more than once a day since I didn't have the time for it.