Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
One thing I was wrong about over the last few years: sign up costs would dramatically reduce spam. Turns out spam is a top 3 problem (aside from retention and infrastructure scaling) to solve for when building a permissionless decentralized social networking protocol. Spammers are willing to pay for sign ups at prices that normal users aren't. Spam is also relative: what's spammy for one person is not for another. Corollary: when you talk to developers building on Farcaster, spam is a top of mind issue whereas users giving product feedback but not actively building in the ecosystem tend to think this isn't that big an issue / not that hard a problem to solve. Also a good proxy for the quality of first principles thinking when suggesting "why don't you just do this?" if you haven't considered how would spammers abuse this and what's the solution.
28 replies
6 recasts
155 reactions
meta-david🎩 | Building Scoop3
@metadavid
“What’s spammy for one person is not for another.” What do you personally classify as spam?
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Incessant, unrequited engagement. Reply guying is good, but there's a limit.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
meta-david🎩 | Building Scoop3
@metadavid
Fair…my definition is non-sensic, no context, or out of context messages (in any form of communication). IE, you send me a pic of a broccoli at 3am with no context or background. I think there’s a good number of us that consider the latter spam. Not sure how you would be able to develop an algorithm that would combat that, so I can understand it’s easier to programmatically solve for your definition. Only caveat with that is people tend to think optimistically and want to assume they didn’t get a reply because the receiver didn’t see it, got busy, etc. 🙂
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction