Actually, my proposal goes beyond open consensus, because I consider blacklisting to potentially be too severe to allow it to be determined by a simple consensus decision (i.e. a single source of truth decided by general agreement).
My proposal is more of an "opt-in" strategy, where each user decides for himself which blacklists he wants a frontend to consider.
This is also the approach I want to take for future reputation/rating systems as well. In the reputation and rating system I'm envisioning, there will be no "single source of truth" decided by general consensus. Instead each individual will get to select whom they want to trust to provide them with reputation information, and they'll be able to weight the significance of those sources. So each user will get custom data based on their own choices.
I am very happy to hear your thoughts on reputation. Indeed, the reason reputation matters at all is because it is subjective, and it is the lack of subjectivity that so reduces it's meaning and makes it susceptible to being simply a commodity on social media.
I believe you are confusing reputation with scoring. It is demonstrable that even quite asocial vertebrates rely on reputation, and the most sociable species are the more dependent they are on scoring reputation. This is because higher sociability has generally promoted centralization, as bees and wasps demonstrate.
However, enabling reputation to be scored by individuals prevents centralization of power, which promotes distribution of power.
I am strongly in favor of societies that feature peers rather than overlords, and distributing reputation scoring is essential to formalizing such society. As it would be difficult to envision our present circumstances resulting in informal society without catastrophic population reduction, which I do not support, I strongly support distributing reputation scoring.