Geoff Golberg
@geoffgolberg
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
7 replies
2 recasts
19 reactions
adrienne
@adrienne
Opportunity for a virtual panel anytime. Don’t need farcon for the discussion. Can use /gmfarcaster channels if we can line up a good panel and a moderator. If you can convince V or others who have different view points let’s do it.
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
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.
3 replies
0 recast
5 reactions
Stephan
@stephancill
I was gonna make a joke about being gatekept from farcon, not farcon protocol But it’s actually kind of an apt analogy if you consider the protocol that farcon is built on to be NYC
0 reply
0 recast
7 reactions
Leeward Bound
@leewardbound
i'm not sure where i stand on this debate, i see both sides, but "its bad. period." does not sound like a good debate partner tbqh
0 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Brock
@runninyeti.eth
Which way do permissions flow when this is renamed "Farcaster IRL"?
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
base
@basewtf
farcon is a joke
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🗿
@bias
🎯🎯🎯
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
