Apparently it works for HN and doesn't work for YouTube, which is why HN should keep the system, and YouTube should change it.
I propose an alternative system, which would work better for YouTube than HN, because it is easier when more people use the service. When you create a new account, you have two options: either someone already on the network vouches for you, or you pay $20 (the more different methods of payment supported, the better). When your account is banned, if you paid the money it is lost; if someone vouched for you, their ability to vouch for people is limited somehow (e.g. normally you can only vouch for one person each month, and if someone you vouched for is banned, you lose this ability for 6 months).
To make the switch to new system easier, keep the legacy accounts (but without the ability to vouch for other people, unless someone vouches for them first, in which case they are no longer legacy accounts), and only apply this rule to accounts created in 2023 and later.
This discussion no longer feels productive. If you’re just going to be tongue in cheek/sarcastic with me the whole time instead of having a discussion then feel free to move on.
Humor aside, my point is that YouTube and HN are pretty similar in their reliance on user-generated content. They both have no technical barriers to anyone signing up and posting anything they want: both have reactive post-publication moderation but not pre-publication vetting.
I think this is on balance a good and valuable thing about both sites. I was trying to show how your proposed solutions would, if applied here, make HN worse, as a way of illustrating why I don't think they're good solutions for YouTube.
(What made me think you were calling for pre-publication review was your "you can’t possibly expect us to vet all the content that we serve". Similarly, you objected to YouTube's approaches here as "reactive".)
