Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a problem inherent with walled garden social media. Their garden, their rules. Instead of trying to police behavior we don't like in those walled gardens (which is mostly like trying to walk in quicksand) we should be supporting open protocols and systems that don't require a walled garden at all, like the internet used to be.
An open garden cannot compete with Facebook, Twitter or Spotify. We need regulation and legislation which clearly outlines what is and is not okay, while creating black box behaviours that is impossible to navigate.
Maybe not for your exact use-case. But "open" doesn't need large numbers, market saturation or a monopoly: those are traits that come from investor-fueled business-models.
A mastodon account that has great communication with seven other accounts is a 100% success! It doesn't need access to billions of people, it just needs to fulfill a need: talk to several fine people. And it often does this just fine with a very small social graph, even.
A musician doesn't need a million streams, they need enough revenue to be an income. On spotify (or youtube, etc.) that, indeed, means "millions of streams". But it could just as well be five tshirts sold, twenty-eight .zip files @ €9.88 sold, and three vinyl shipped in a month.
The "numbers" that mark "competing with" faang, really don't matter. We don't need to make billions, we just need to make a good income.