Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't doubt posts are flagged by users as opposed to moderation. But at the same time, it also seems like flagging can be too easily abused, and can lead to accusations of censorship and distrust. (Though I've certainly seen it work well in cases, especially for false/defamatory articles.) But it really does seem like we're at the point where longstanding users need to also be able to vouch for flagged stories, or…
But flagging works most of the time. There are just too many submissions that result in utterly predictable and boring comments. I myself succumbed to the temptation many times, and left tons of comments when it came to, say, Trump's latest antics. Frankly HN will be (marginally) better if someone erased every comment of mine in any thread that mentions Trump. Without user flagging HN will be unusable.
Or you could do what I did: something unknown that resulted in years of being limited to about 4 replies a day.