Providing a service DOES NOT presume moderation. Does your ISP moderate what sites you look at? If yes, you should find a better ISP. I don't want to be a nays

Providing a service DOES NOT presume moderation. Does your ISP moderate what sites you look at? If yes, you should find a better ISP. I don't want to be a naysayer, but if you expect people will willfully adopt a disastrous set of constraints (such as open-sourcing a lot of their critical code), and do it so they can market as the "third gen social media" brand, we need to analyze the system and the scale of the agents inside. Usually this type of soft-franchise, where "seals of quality" are given to those who abide by a set of quality etc. principles work best when you have many small agents in a market, because these small agents don't have the ability to build a brand by themselves, so they look to "cling" to other brands that would give them legitimacy, authority, sense of trust and quality. But this is not the market of social networks, because social networks thrive on network effects, so the small networks just die, and only the big ones thrive. So now it's you, and a set of small networks who have everything set up against their success, and the likes of Meta, Google, China's TikTok, and their money, reach and propaganda machine. Even if you succeed and reach prominence, they'll discredit your entire effort only so they have an excuse why they won't abide by it. And then continue to dominate the market. That's how I see it. If you want to bootstrap this successfully at all, maybe reduce the friction and instead of 33 rules, pick one thing that is unquestionably good and everyone would agree with, even the big ones, and make this your initiative until you gather recognition. Then slowly build up as you have the feedback of more people so you can see where assumptions are wrong.