as a user of the digg revival(another social network that died but had good backing), i'm highly skeptical of the new approaches of 'anti-reddit/botting/addictive design'

the reason being I don't think people address the supply side of the equation: why should I an individual contribute to your ecosystem of content? I personally left digg because there wasn't any new content and I wasn't getting enough satisfaction with the current engagement? Ironic right? Any new subreddits also suffer from this same problem, little engagement until a threashold is crossed-1k members,5k members,etc it depends on the community. To get to their is extremely hard and it would make more sense to go to an existing ecosystem like X, LinkedIn, Reddit,Instagram etc

plz don't take this as criticism of the idea, but rather the blind spot that I've seen many times with these new social media sites.

Thank you for your comment! That is a very valid observation - network effect is hard to beat. Moreover, because of how our voting system works, the project becomes even more dependent on community size than, say, reddit, that has a top-down moderation structure. And it is also dependent on volunteers voting on the content and on moderation proposals. That is more work than, say, clicking upvotes sometimes or just consuming content. But hey, if in exchange you get better bot resistance, better content, and full transparency, would the additional effort not be worth it?

And, of course, as the hero section of the landing page says, this is still an experiment. Indeed, it does not matter whether it works mathematically if it does not work psychologically - this is what we want to test!