You keep saying "the web site" as if steemit.com is the only window to this content. It's not.

No, I said "the web site" because I was giving feedback (on the roadmap, which covers, among other things, the web site) and a suggestion for the web site. (Also, to the extent that the feature incorporates blockchain-enforced features, that as well, but I don't know exactly how it will work.)

Now please reread my comment with that intent in mind. It is perfectly reasonable that the developers of the web site have different ideas about how it should work and may decline to act on my suggestion, but my suggestion is a perfectly reasonable one based on the premise of censorship-resistance and (optionally) uncensored discussions (meaning uncensored by the author, not the site operator) being a value-add for the greater ecosystem including the steemit.com web site.

There are certain types of content (an example being the encouragement or promotion of pedophilia, or posts promoting violence against minorities) that we will never permit to be displayed on steemit.com, regardless of one's settings.

This has nothing to do with the author- or subcommunity moderator-based moderation feature. You won't allow it whether or not the author wants it.

I also well understand the distinction between a reader preference and otherwise. I am making a different suggestion, that author or subcommunity creator be able to visibly, verifiably, and irrevocably waive their ability to publish moderation advice that will be disseminated to readers via the blockchain and/or website using the feature. A small amount of thought will reveal the utility in this and why it is distinct from a reader preference.

It's at least 6-12 months away before we tackle such things, though, so there will be plenty of time for input from users during the process. In the short term, the deployment of communities will give us useful real-world data on the social dynamics created as a result of such a model.

Good approach