The question is, why do you want people to agree on what is allowed in some kind of absolute fashion? In the park example, the important is that most if not

The question is, why do you want people to agree on what is allowed in some kind of absolute fashion? In the park example, the important is that most if not all users should be satisfied with the experience they live in the park most of the time. If your park is the sunny nudist Valley, probably the expectations of rules won't be the same than those who live on the demure cold hill. And as far as everyone is free to go live wherever the rules feets best to their own general tendencies, you don't structurally design your society to generate drama about mundane frivolous topics. Of course if you want to be the platform that bind them all, for example because you think people are brainless cash cows, you are going to face soon or later the fact that rules for demure nudists doesn't grab a very large audience. The article does mention a bit fediverse, but then conclude that if you can't have everyone in the same park, you failed. Having a single park with the same permanent rules for everyone will not satisfy even a single individual, because people have moods and interest that evolve over time. Yes it has a cost to go from one park to an other. Compare it with the cost it would imply to have a single park for everyone.