I don't think any of those are definitions. Look at what happens when you try to use them to determine whether or not something's part of the "Open Social Web"
Threads doesn't respect my privacy. Does that mean it's not part of the "open social web"? What about non-consensual search engines which ignore Mastodon's opt-in search settings? What about Bluesky, which is all-public -- including blocks?
mastodon.social and mastodon.online aren't independent (they're both owned by Mastodon gGmbH), does that mean they're not part of the "open social web"?
indieweb.social blocks a lot of instances, which is good, but it means that people there don't have complete control over who they interact with ... does that mean indieweb.social isn't part of the "open social web"?
XMPP's an open protocol, and anybody can write anything on top of it, so is everything XMPP-based part of the open social web? What about OAuth? HTTP?
A farmers' market isn't run by a single company, is it part of the "open social web"?
etc etc etc.
