Cameron Armstrong on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

20 recasts

20 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

Looking for feedback on this iteration for channels The single biggest remaining complaint is people feeling like the pre-existing, large, topic based channels like /food or /founders should be more accesible. It will also reduce work for channel mods who don't want to have to approve every single person who wants to cast in their channel, but are OK giving up some control of who (and they can always invite someone to be a member to guarantee it). Curious: 1. Would you turn this on or off for your channel? 2. Any concerns? https://warpcast.notion.site/Public-mode-11f6a6c0c10180869699c725fa9e02e3

45 replies

179 recasts

884 reactions

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

i know its more complex, but since it sorta feels like a legacy hangover/i hate change kind of thing it maybe makes sense to not call them channels at all as you said they're basically big vestigial hashtag aggregators so maybe a lightweight way to handle it is by keeping the frontend looking like a channel, but fill in the info so it's clear that it is NOT a channel, is not actively moderated/community forming, and just make it default public algo mode it gives people the security blanket that it's still there, but also let's you basically wash your hands of it. you could even make it a @ponder poll or something to let people vote on what channels get morphed into this... square? exchange? idk a good name - zombie channel?

1 reply

0 recast

5 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

Assume there’s clear rules for each channel: membership, public, future versions. Does that clear it up?

1 reply

0 recast

4 reactions

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

i think it does if you (to the extent y'all ever do) indicate public channels are like a one way door? maybe this is controversial, but letting any channel be public mode sorta just gets us back the to previous iteration of sorta soulless mega channels (which is what i thought we are getting away from) maybe that's the point, but an easy-ish attack using public mode is to squat a bunch of channels, put it in public mode, let it grow, and anywhere community forms organically the owner/squatter takes it private and hold the community ransom/try to sell it off/etc making public mode permanent/quasi-permanent makes me a little less reticent to contribute to places where i'm unsure to who the value is accruing

2 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

Dan Romero pfp

1. Assume we clean up squatting and penalize inactive channel mods for most cases (ignore the handful of legacy auto follow channels) 2. Goal is to ease the transition while still giving more control to channels that care. 3. There’s a version where channels with MIA mods don’t get any distribution in the algo. So the value of the channel is proportional to how much effort.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

Totally get that - I'm still forming my opinion on the new channel model myself (using /creators to experiment in growing a focused community - i already feel the pain of automod leaving us haha) and all this broadly makes sense to me and i'm 100% empathetic to the casual user/mod, but it sorta does feel like a "should we maybe burn the boats" moment? y'all are much closer to the data than me, so ultimately defer to your judgment but people didn't like channel moderation to begin with, got super confused at recent vs trending dual feeds, and will continue to claim about the channel algo's whether or not a mod is actively adjusting them 🤷‍♂️ ...although i am realizing this could be a roundabout way of getting what y'all initially wanted (your algo moderating most channels at least at first) - that makes sense to me too and could be the sweet spot!

2 replies

0 recast

1 reaction

Devin Baker pfp

@devinbaker.eth

Just wanna say this is such a spot-on back-and-forth I've been following all this as a new-er user (~Feb., from @packy's post), and someone who is really excited about the potential of the platform so maybe this is a helpful perspective to add on? Idk will leave that to you I'm someone that has simultaneously: 1. Strived to build a following here, but off of truly thoughtful/insightful ideas and engagement (aka not spamming, nor being incendiary) & 2. Strived to build a community (really early days with /comma, and also just started /ic yesterday - both really rooted in key parts of myself and my story, things that matter to me deeply in my day-to-day life) This community effort also started in Web2 (have a newsletter & podcast @ www.comma.org), yet have really seen how Web3 *could* change everything (see my three-part series starting with this piece: https://www.comma.org/p/transformation-economy-part-1)

1 reply

1 recast

1 reaction

Devin Baker pfp

@devinbaker.eth

TL;DR: - I was in fact using big channels for distribution in old models, seemed it actually worked to some extent (see this cast: https://warpcast.com/devinbaker.eth/0x03cb36b2) - Still figuring out how best to navigate this new upgrade - Excited that it could make things better for actually building a true community of people in /comma, with depth - But still curious what the incremental value of a channel/community is on Farcaster - Agreed it shouldn't be based on distribution alone - But rather how does one create real value on Farcaster in someone's life - I think it's rooted in content/things that are intrinsic to the platform today, but still wondering what it looks like, and whether it's more than simply fan tokens Idk this is all stream-of-consciousness, I hope it's helpful, lmk if you wanna talk more I'd love to

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Cameron Armstrong pfp

Cameron Armstrong

thanks for joining the thread! i think it all starts and ends with the content. if we can cultivate places where people WANT to post and WANT to read the posts because it genuinely provides value (education, inspiration, entertainment, etc), then farcaster works. if we can't, we die.

1 reply

1 recast

2 reactions

Devin Baker pfp

@devinbaker.eth

I think this is right I definitely am prone to overthinking, so the “most important thing” framework is really helpful If we try to solve for good actors who share the same values and who post and also want thoughtful interaction, all else works itself out Not because it’s easy, but because there’s a team that deeply cares and is building very hard, and solving for the “most important thing” will make everything work better Similar to @myles-cooks’s thoughts on the L1 vs. L2 debate imo If we solve for making the ecosystem better (aka more in alignment with its purpose and values), all the technicalities come out in the wash

2 replies

1 recast

0 reaction