>>56837
>yeah because I don't want just 5 people to use my service.
If it was good, a lot of people would use it, certainly more than 5 people. A lot of people use Tor. Being good is a sufficient but not necessary condition for lots of people using your service.
The only reason to care about the number of users over everything else is brouzouf, in which case your jewish ass can go back to hacker news or whatever.
>There's already so many distributed platforms.
No there aren't, at least not anonymous ones. Freenet is the only one that meets those requirements but it doesn't nail the decentralized moderation aspects.
>Which is more popular/works better: Matrix or Discord, YouTube or PeerTube, ZeroNet or the regular net, Bitcoin or PayPal, Twitter or Mastodon, etc.
Who cares? If you want something that "works well" (as long as you are a good goy) and you don't care that they can censor you, spy on you or ban you and delete all your data at any moment then you can use those services that already exist.
>I figure I can ensure better privacy and more normie friendly use will have better results.
You can not ensure better privacy. First because you can not provide any proof you aren't spying on your users, and second because if your service actually gets popular you will not be able to withstand legal pressure from feds and CIA agents networking with your company and getting their agents hired as employees to infiltrate your facilities and plant malware on the servers.
>Honestly most centralized services would be fine if they took basic steps to ensure user privacy.
I bet you think VPNs make you anonymous and duckduckgo doesn't share your search logs with anyone. But post again when you stop being so naive though.