Honestly, I don't get the fuss about these "libertarian-inspired social network protocols". It's not like the technical side of social media is the tough one: it's always been the political and sociological one.
In the end, most people aren't hardcore libertarians and do want content moderation, centralized discovery, spam blocking... I would really find it interesting if it came about a protocol that actually cared about those things and provided a way to handle them other than a megacorp doing all of it. But all those protocols operate under the assumption that people are okay with seeing really bad things that real people come up with (even CP like commented elsewhere in this thread) themselves under the guise of "full decentralized liberty".
I suspect that's why they all ultimately fail or at least remain niche things. If the alternative to megacorps is this wild west, people will remain in the megacorps' social media.
In the end, most people aren't hardcore libertarians and do want content moderation, centralized discovery, spam blocking... I would really find it interesting if it came about a protocol that actually cared about those things and provided a way to handle them other than a megacorp doing all of it. But all those protocols operate under the assumption that people are okay with seeing really bad things that real people come up with (even CP like commented elsewhere in this thread) themselves under the guise of "full decentralized liberty".
I suspect that's why they all ultimately fail or at least remain niche things. If the alternative to megacorps is this wild west, people will remain in the megacorps' social media.