horsefacts 🚂
@horsefacts.eth
A divide I sense in the Bot Problem Discourse is whether you think it's possible to exclude antisocial actors from an open network. Call these positions "idealism" and "fatalism." Idealists think we can intervene and limit the long term growth of spam with the right incentives, credentials, and some social (network) engineering. It makes a lot of sense if you think Farcaster is closer to a closed platform like Twitter. Fatalists think the long term growth of spam is inevitable and in the long run this will always be the majority of activity on the network. So we need to get really good at filtering. It makes a lot of sense if you think Farcaster is closer to an open protocol like email. Another dimension on top is optimism vs pessimism: whether you think the negative effects can be mitigated. I can't speak for everyone, but working close to the protocol has made me much more of a fatalist optimist.
11 replies
12 recasts
70 reactions
Garrett
@garrett
ive always considered myself a pragmatic optimist but maybe thats just a fatalist optimisit
0 reply
1 recast
7 reactions
christopher
@christopher
Yes, email is plagued by spam because its core protocols were designed in a more innocent era. But we're building new protocols now with decades of lessons learned. We can bake in proof of work, reputation systems, stake-weighted voting, or other cryptoeconomic mechanisms that make spam dramatically more expensive without sacrificing openness. I think of it like city planning. While early cities grew organically and had to retrofit solutions to problems, modern urban development can iterate/design around known failure modes from the start and build progressively. You don't eliminate crime, but you can make it much harder through new environmental design. A pragmatic idealist would say: Sure, some spam will always exist. But by iterating the protocols, we can keep it to a manageable fraction rather than accepting it will be most of the activity.
0 reply
1 recast
6 reactions
Jacob
@jrf
fatalist optimists assemble
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Boo-ca
@luca1111
Started as an idealist here, but now I’m leaning more toward fatalism..
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Nick
@nintynick.eth
positive reputation is all you need from https://joi.ito.com/joiwiki/EmergentDemocracyPaper#head-33a579ffc0dccbff15be01734ea4138ea4e7635c
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Nick
@nintynick.eth
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
caz.eth
@caz.eth
Then there are capitalists who believe that scarce resources such as user attention and feed space are best allocated through markets and pricing mechanisms and maybe a lot of it would sort itself out if there only was a way to natively combine scarce resources such as money with open protocols.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
Do you think it would be better to let users customize the settings and decide what gets filtered from the protocol? Right now, it feels like the consensus is that the client should make those decisions, and if you don’t like it, you’re supposed to build your own. One of the main reasons I really liked Discove was because it gave users way more flexibility in filtering out content and remixing feeds/users
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Daniel Lombraña
@teleyinex.eth
we might need to gather together as we did in the past,to share our GPG public keys so we know for real that you are not a bot. I would say things are going to become more and more complicated because even non-bots use AI to improve their casts, fix grammar errors or convey in a better way their message. Let's see how it evolves.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
L3MBDA
@l3mbda
idealists vs fatalists
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Words of the Day
@wotday
What are the best words of the day?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
