[1] https://static.philippdubach.com/pdf/Attention_Dynamics_in_Online_Communities_Power_Laws__Preferential_Attachment__and_Early_Success_Prediction_on_Hacker_News.pdf
ArXiv is not for peer review, it's just for publishing.
I've seen a lot of post from Zenodo, but most of them were bad.
[I have no arXiv account anyway.]
I understand that but unless I publish my preprint somewhere it's hard to submit for review.
For a different way to receive feedback for a preprint consider truediffs.com. I created it partly out of frustration for the time it takes to publish smaller work. Although not currently implemented, I can provide a version that keeps review comments private.
How does your platform work in an academic context?
One of the platform's goals is to enable the lightweight version of an academic paper, where you present a claim and evidence and don't need to spin an elaborate story that makes up a full paper. When one isn't that far along in the research they can present what they have so far. Some academics say papers and the review process are too bureaucratic. The key determinant of "acceptance" is whether each sentence written in an article evaluates to true. This means the shorter an article the easier it is to publish. You can learn more in /how.
The platform's content isn't specific to academia. It might turn out that the platform needs to be narrowed down only to academic-like writing or cloned into a version that is only for academic-like writing. Intuition suggests this might be unnecessary or detrimental. That being able to report good results in few and simple words increases discovery velocity. Happy to make changes that increase the platform's ability to find and share novelty.
If the platform fills a need it will survive and if not it should be shutdown.