Criticizing that system without offering any better alternative isn’t useful.

Disagree. Pointing out flaws in a proposal is important, it raises awareness so that they can be resolved.

In the jury system, content could be hidden as soon as it is reported

True of all moderation systems, but is open to abuse. Removing content, even temporarily is good way to censor opinions, by hiding them until they fall off the "new" page. Moderation usually happens quite slowly if the mods arent terminally online. A jury system may exacerbate that if the jurors aren't available to respond in time.

Penalising false reports also risks discouraging reports, and may actually just encourage "group think". And if accounts are easy to spin up, there is no real cost to abusing reports to hide content.

I actually think the current systems are actually adequate. We have a moderators who can be replaced at any time by admins, which gives oversight, and we have the ability to simply move communities to other instances if that fails.