I think the confusion is coming from it being a social network which requires them to ask people for “help” to prove out their ideas — you can’t have a network without users.

Having people helping to prove the idea is one small step away from having people helping to implement the idea and, IMHO, is where the confusion is coming from. They want to implement the idea without help but can’t because the idea itself can’t work without help and helpful people are, unfortunately, helpful.

Totally wrong message being learned here.

What I read sounds like the project owner can clearly articulate the projects purpose (a point about free speech and big tech v lightness and about enabling). And the proposed contributions are reasonably contrary to them as he sees it.

Experience, time... I think the response in this case was perfectly reasonable so I don't know how to remark on this.

Hosting the code (someplace) and discussing issues may be separate good suggestions, all in the context of the projects purpose.

You can have the experience and time to do something and choose not to.

That is perfectly fine - but then don't write a blog post warning people about free offers for "help".

Just instead say you're not interested in doing OSS and want to keep the project private. You're not obligated to do anything.

> which the OP can reject with explanation if it does not go in the direction they desire.

Often that alone - going through pull requests is time consuming enough to drain you.