This. Curation isn't the answer, it's the problem.
Without curation, you have:
You will observe that the worst, most left-wing, most insane online communities lay on the most militantly censored and sterilized websites. Look at Reddit, which is basically an online communist gulag at this point. You have the gamer version, neogaf, which is an online gaming communist gulag full of pedophiles. They're completely fine with pedophilia because the moderating staff consists of known pedophiles, but if you even dare mention the dirty T word (Trump), you're banned on sight. Mainstream news websites no longer allow commenting because the moderators lost to the deluge of dissenting voices.
- Comment sections dominated by right-thinkers that insult and make fun of the idiots and babbling lunatics that show up
- The chans, in which the leftist babbling lunatics (but I repeat myself) get drowned out by autists with a HUGE ax to grind with them
- Facebook pre-censorship, where it was mainly boomers making fun of millennial soy boys
That said, there is a difference between curation and (reasonable) moderation. Roosh's forum isn't a place of curation, it is an uncurated platform with rock solid moderation that follow the rules. The mods here don't ban you because they don't like you, unlike on a lot of leftist websites, they ban you mainly just if you break the rules. Coming to a place like this, you can expect to clearly understand where the boundaries are. More importantly, you can expect that there ARE boundaries at all, rather than the capricious whims of a pedophilic mod with a meth problem.
It's also worth pointing out that software also matters. You will observe that right-wing discourse dominates on platforms where messages are sorted by time. Left-wing discourse dominates on curated platforms where messages are sorted by "likes", like how Reddit does it. The difference is that the former presents a less biased view of where discourse is going and offers a broader range of discussion, whereas the latter represents a kind of consensus-building approach where discussion orients around how much consensus there is on a particular topic.
Years ago, almost all online news sites had reader comment sections. This was a major part of their online presence.
But commenters didn't follow "the narrative." They picked apart the articles, sometimes citing better sources than the writer. Commenters also called out the newspapers and various other sites for bias.
Little by little, these reader comment sections disappeared. These days it's hard to remember that CNN, Slate, NPR, and The Week ever had comments sections. As did your local newspaper -- whichever one that is.
Even Yahoo News recently removed its comment section. That section dates back to the mid 1990s.
If you research this, you'll find news stories that (falsely) claim that comment sections were nixed because of "trolls." This is B.S. Their idea of "trolls" is anyone who disagrees with them.
This whole thing should be an embarrassment to the news industry. I was working in this field in the 1990s. The buzzword then was "interactive." They wanted interaction with readers.
But when they got that interaction, they balked and then backed away. What a disgrace. For more on this, do an online search and you'll find article after article explaining away why newspapers and online news sites don't actually want to hear from readers.