genuine question

if twitter was democratically owned and governed, would it *actually* be a better platform?

for all the rhetoric around user ownership in web3, very few people have thought critically about how this works in practice

doin stuff @uniswap // podcasting @ othersidepod.xyz

also, there’s a huge difference between governing protocols and platforms

i consider Twitter to be a platform ‒ not a protocol

It depends greatly on how governance is done, how decisions are made

Could work well for example if voters elected great people to execute and left them to it

Could also be worse.. and I don't think DAO infra and mental models are mature enough for this kind of challenge (they will be)

definitely not. can you imagine the discord/discourse/snapshot firehose? would be a constant stream of noise and spam sent through an already broken information pipeline. such a move, today, would be certain death imo. crypto coordination and gov still needs more time to get its shit together

high witch of woe ⚔️ | cryptocoven.xyz | art + code

yeah this is a really interesting dynamic

feels like our current best answer to curation and moderation is one-protocol, multi-client

(so clients handle the curation and moderation)

very interested to see how/if this works in practice tho

I do think what defines a platform is curation + moderation, which web3 generally lacks plans for. 

It takes emotional intelligence + fortitude to sift through grey edge cases and decide if its harmful or not. It's hard to imagine a group of randomly selected peers doing better than Twitter's Trust + Safety team

hmm i ~ don't ~ think so. content curation + distribution is what makes twitter more than a glorified rss feed. 

Access to their API though opened up a thriving ecosystem of interesting apps based off of twitter's data that withered up + died once they closed it though! but that doesn't effect twitter itself