this sounds dangerously like advocating for protocol level censorship of accounts. 

protocol level censorship is bad. period. no one should be given those powers. 

remember, @geoffgolberg they used these powers to kick you off of X.

Technowatermelon. Elder Millenial. Building Farcaster. 

nf.td/varun

Decentralized social protocols will not succeed without guardrails.. that is my opinion

You are obviously welcome to have a different opinion

We have traded messages on this in the past, in fact

My position remains the same, i.e. censorship refers to content.. and not behaviorally-based policy violations 

I have long advocated for Farcaster to have formal and thorough policy as it relates to platform manipulation, more broadly (and not limited to spam.. which is a subset of platform manipulation)

It sure would make for spicy (and informative) discussion/debate during FarCon

Unfortunately, I have been gatekept from attending

It sure would make for spicy (and informative) discussion/debate during FarCon

Unfortunately, I have been gatekept from attending https://warpcast.com/v/0x0c272dca https://warpcast.com/geoffgolberg/0xe3048478

I like running, poker and oysters | Founder, Social Forensics (SocialForensics.com) | Berkeley & UPenn | Learning to listen

Debate is always useful, I don't know maybe he misrepresented your opinion, but I do think that banning at the protocol level is a very poor solution.

My preferred solution is open-sourced labeling algorithms. 

But IMO Warpcast already bans people in the form of shadowban, which is the worst form of ban, it's better to ban someone temporarily or permanently at the client level but never do a shadowban, shadowbanning should be illegal, I don't care if it helps fighting the bots or not because is the definition of lack of transparency, and has been weaponized too many times to control distribution in a specific way.

Software developer, open source enthusiast, privacy advocate.

Clear Wallet Open-source privacy focused wallet: https://clear-wallet.flashsoft.eu/


Working on Farcaster and Warpcast. Longer thoughts at https://dwr.email

Again, it's just a statement without an open-source backend there is no concrete proof.

You could 100k secret labels, or you could tell the truth, but it is not provable just by a team member saying it.

There's a lot the Warpcast team can do to improve on this matter.

- A pledge against shadowbanning. 
- A client policy for temporary/permanently banning accounts at the client level by Warpcast.
- A transparent and public process of appealing such decisions
- More transparent algorithms to ensure user content and network are not purposely pushed in predetermined directions 

These are all great suggestions to improve trust, transparency, and fairness, while also potentially limiting damaging accounts. 

To be brutally honest, I don't expect them to ever do this as these will strongly limit their ability to control the network which I think is the main reason why they do this whole project.

Great to hear that:

There are a lot of things, I've always pushed for more openness to create a space where people can be more trusty, many of those things were added to be fair, but in a very long timeline.

I argue there's much more that can be done, like enabling CORS for api.warpcast.com so people can have access more easy from the browser to data that is not on protocol.

I just made a cast very recently about how trust can be improved:

If I thought there was no space for improvement I wouldn't waste any effort, to think this protocol has any chance of success, I am not there and I've never been there at any point.

https://warpcast.com/andrei0x309/0x09b0caf8

if you don't trust us at this point, not sure what I can do for you