I don't think it's unbalanced to call BS on a service claiming to be decentralized that in fact relies on a single centralized service they do not control, twice over. (Once for auth, second for content).
Yeah, I guess it’s more accurate to call it an [almost] fully decentralised discovery service rn. Decentralised hosting should come later. The almost is for the oauth server, which can be improved by adding other independent trusted servers in a permissioned network.
Totally fair! Sorry if my initial response was perhaps a tad harsh... my bullshit-0-meter goes to a million for anything even vaguely crypto/blockchain related.
That’s true but I am trying to discourage people publishing other people’s work. Hence users need to link their account through oauth. Other hosts can be added.
A common motivating concept for decentralized is no authoritarian oversight to deplatform you.
You're seeking editorial influence (control) from the start.
Setting aside what users want versus what you want, as a platform technology you need to be careful here.
You way want to brush up on the safe harbor laws for Internet infrastructure/pipes/hosting firms and technologies versus the lack of safe harbor for platforms with desire or ability to exercise editorial influence or control on a user or content basis.
You can navigate this, by having reasons such as "I'm not editing, but by associating users with a non-anonymous identity they will self moderate", as you've noted. You can, with such reasons, still have a bit of cake after eating it. But be careful not to veer into actual editorial control unless you're prepared for full liability.