Personally, individually we can all be whatever stripe we like. But collectively solving a global problem it is necessary to communicate without a striped agenda. Concentrate on the inarguable and the clearest elegant solution.

Participate when and where it suits your agenda, or inarguably agree & Dissent, protest and act in opposition where you must.

But reality dictates that the clearest solution does not contain critical mass
interested in tossing all of it out and starting over with an particular ideological stripe.

The quiet part is that the eventual result will be changes in ownership/format/protocol/value that financially is often detrimental to the owners of the network of users we wish to be of service and educate.

and it can stay quiet because the same is true without our action or agenda (see waaay above.) the solution entails offering a value add to these various networks, it need not be presented as a dagger, pointy though it may be.

It should be clear to anyone with even a passing interest that any attempt at blanket moderation of human behavior is a fools errand.

This fact is unconcerned with scale, 1 human or a 3 million humans. If you tell them they cannot do a thing, they alone still get to decide to do or not do a thing.

In the "social media age" (Gyahh, I threw up in my mouth a bit, sorry) there is a constant struggle to decide what is and is not allowed, speech, video, image, joke, thought, etc.

And we all get it, "Have some decency damn", but some, in some areas of interest, will always have differing opinions of what is and is not acceptably decent.

Social outrage ensues to varying degrees.

The idea that humans are attracted to Fiction, Horror, Crime, Conspiracy, Violence, Tribal reaffirmation and inhumanity to man is somehow treated as a new evil of the social media algorithm is ludicrous on its face.

Social virality ensues to varying degrees.

These are useful and valuable though sometimes abhorrent pieces of data that are being monetized and manipulated to what many call disastrous consequence.

And there is where we can agree, the inarguable.

Inarguably good, no.

Yet any statistical increase in the good from those that choose to participate is "better" than without.

The question is how small do you want that stat to be?

You can increase it without perverting the good, Without painting with a brush that is colored arguably incorrectly bad by some who you are trying to welcome and encourage to participate for the increased common good.

You just have to focus on the attractive good. The inevitable side effects to you may be that good, to others their personal benefit or flexibility or utility are the attractive "good"

Not advocating hiding the motivations. Just been around open source longer than its been called that and witnessed perfectly reasonable intelligent folks throw lifetime's of work out the window over ideological disagreements unrelated to the solution being crafted to the detriment and death of said solution.

It is an important fact to face up front, its on a list...

...

No solution is perfect, everyone is flawed, you can learn something new, you can refine and even discard your beliefs, you are often wrong, mistaken, ignorant, and stubborn. Facts are integral. Your head full of jelly is completely unique, just like everybody else's, So don't get too attached to it's representation of what should be, as to what actually do be, and what can be.

The walled garden is called that because it is an attractive place to hang out. Its pleasant, undemanding, chill.

Trying to convince the folks inside it that they need to pour this gasoline on it and light it up, well it is an uphill battle.

I'm not arguing against any particular legislative action, I'm saying that actually enacting a common rule on a global scale is impossible at current global economy, geopolitical environment.

I am arguing that the cost benefit analysis says that convincing your legislative representative to cripple his donors is hard enough when he and many of his constituents and colleagues don't have an iPhone in his pocket and is Tweeting on his iPad.

That is a very All or Nothing self defeatist attitude though.

Your progress will always be marked as not there yet or all done in a day and be completely dependent on other's action.

That is a way to go, but it sounds like a difficult recruitment speech.

What does the landscape look like along the way? What does it look like at the end? How did you help?

I don't know, I've been working on this problem for more than a decade, and I'm pretty dug in on my approach, which again, not the correct forum to get into (we'd be here for days), but I support everyone's attempts at more just and equitable world, even if I could use a few extra hands.