It is bad if a network, like Facebook, has a large user base where it is attractive/valueable/helpful to someone who can know gain a larger following simply by joining (and getting people to voluntarily follow them). The network itself has value and people are able to exploit that value.
Look at this example in comparison to the alternative - that political pundit launching their own network. They can say “hey, go join my social network which I just created!”. I firmly believe they should be entitled todo that and people should be able to voluntarily signup/follow them on that new network. But that is a much much harder task to build/operate/scale then simply joining yet another social network and tapping into the user base.
Usually Fediverse type platforms just use reverse chronological order (or similar as options) with no "algorithm" for personalized content recommendations. Bonfire explicitly states such in their FAQ.
1) Can someone who is already famous, ex: some TV political pundit, join the network and quickly leverage the networks strengths to acquire a following. EVEN if that acquisition happens out-of-network. For example: let's say bonfire has 100 million users, it's a problem if someone famous can say "follow me on bonfire" and get 10 million followers in a week. While I understand this is a very high bar, any solutions to this problem (regardless of their implementation), will require people to know eachother personally in a non-scaleable way.
2) Can someone who is not famous, ex: a conspiracy theorist, gain a following by posting controversial/clickbait things. Ie there can be any algorithmic feedback loop of consumption (views/likes/follows) fueling viral growth.
IMHO, if the answer to either of those is yes, you are fighting a losing battle.