While you may not get validation, you will get a critical analysis of your idea from multiple perspectives. I've already seen some responses with amazing insights that would've taken an inordinate amount of time to gather.

The shortcoming of that analysis (and I've commented here) is that my comment is based on what I imagine the service to entail rather than what the OP imagines it to entail. Part of that is that the description is thin and could probably use more work at least in the form of diagrams showing the mechanism. But most of my imagining is a bias when I see the word 'platform' toward assuming the premise is "If I build it, they will come" without talking to "they".

I mean, the odds that I would use the service are less than the odds that I will be hiring a team in the near future and the odds that I will hire a team in the near future are approximately zero. So yeah I've got a thoughtful analysis but not from the point of view of a potential user.

Or to put it another way, an inordinate amount of time talking to possible users is much more productive than a few minutes talking to non-potential users or several months building a proto-type. It is also much much harder.

While get out of the building is a great advice (and almost always hard to execute), the biggest risk is not getting too many negative feedback online/in your peer group, but actually getting false positives. If you're determined, you'll give it another shot probably even after a negative validation (e.g. here). If you get an overly positive one, then you might not try hard enough to validate with real potential customers.

Having said that, I think it's OK to ask questions like this here, because you might get good insights, e.g. from people who have tried it.