The solution I have read that @dan is implementing is biometric ID. That's totally a dealbreaker for me. I will never use biometric ID voluntarily. The risk of being hacked is lifelong compromise, and could actually prove existentially harmful. No potential benefits from using social media outweigh that risk to me.

"...the mainstream sees the lack of moderation as an invitation to trolls, hateful people, and other illegal content running rampant."

Censors always reveal their weakness, since their inability to sustain factual reality is their need to censor. That may put me in a niche group, but it is based on facts, rather than some need to be one with a herd which imparts unnecessary risk. Herds are possible to corral, and thus subject to being slaughtered en masse, metaphorically speaking, at least.

I'll live with the risks facts impose, since the real world isn't safe, never has been, and never will be. Only those dependent on false security - security theater - need reality to be censored.

Thanks!