What's the difference between a moderated SaidIt and a community-regulated Lemmy instance?

The community would have a say in the Lemmy instance, be automatically civilized and respectful, be openly self-regulating, be decentralized (shared, mirrored, backed-up), be worth promoting, and people would have a stake in it's success and future. This is a template that could be forked. Separate but together.

If someone coded a bridge tool content on the Lemmy instance could be mirrored into a limited-access SaidIt sub, and vice versa. And/or perhaps a MultiShare™ browser addon that could could post in multiple places at the same time would solve the issue (ie. with one click post the same thing to Lemmy, SaidIt, Reddit, Communities.win, Twitter, Gab, etc.).

Essentially people must demonstrate they're worthy of being invited to avoid STABs (shills, trolls, and bots) - thus SaidIt can be the filter to draw from and for free speech, fun, and nonsense.

Removed, regulated, and/or censored comments can be openly determined by the community, rather than the capricious arbitrary decision of a single moderator, admin, or owner - and critically precedents can be established in documentation. Few hard rules (no porn, no advocating violence, no spam, no forum harm) and many soft guidelines with as many examples as necessary. Critically, all of these concepts would circle back to a foundational constitution-charter-mission statement, along with goals and a roadmap - all openly developed by the community.

Problem users get 3 strikes recorded in open logs, and after each triplet their account will be locked for 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, then for good if they just can't behave. All strikes expire a year after their inception. People would have time and space to learn, grow, and improve.

These are my first draft ideas that folks could start from, improve, and further develop.