I like this thread and thank you for starting it. You asked for feedback.
I don't comprehend or miss-understand your "collectivism" undertone. Can you elaborate?
Who is this "we" group? Why does the group "we" have to do anything at all? See I believe in merit/value driven free markets. If one provides a value that the audience actually cares for then that operator gains market shares, gains pageviews or engagement or whatever they are after.
What does the audience actually want?
I think the answer is speed/simplicity of UI and a human community that follows the same principles a IRL peer engagement requires to flourish. What we do in my forum is treat the audience a little bit like children; with the upmost respect, not belittle them like they are infants. How does a loving family parents engage with each other. Seen, Safe, Secure, Sooting Yes...it may sound Kumbaja lets all hug the tree crazy (maybe?) but it worked in my community.
The EFF link you posted elsewhere also goes into that a little bit.
Centralization in my opinion is never a good idea ever. It monopolizes authority/"leadership" and restricts free flow of new ideas and experiments. Yes It might be saver for the group at large however people have different ideas and via competition a new leader shall emerge. Then that leaders strength is at the same moment its weakness hence the competition pushes for progress. Yet a better idea.
And yes I know its a very simplistic worldview. Maybe naive or utopian. I want to see many unique forums not under one central control, ownership or guidance. I like winners AND losers.
Good thread. Will track it.