Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions

Jason pfp
Jason
@jachian
Even if I think channels is a push in the right direction long term, it’s important to surface valid concerns and critiques
2 replies
2 recasts
47 reactions

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
What is the critique other than "bad"?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Jason pfp
Jason
@jachian
Dan there’s a thriving conversation going on if you click in, but let me try @askgina.eth can you summarize the critiques found in the original cast from @eggman.eth ? Would also like to compile critiques from the comments from his original cast. Thanks
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions

Dan Romero pfp
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Do you agree with the AI summary? Happy to explain the rationale on each point but don't want to address points that you don't think are true / agree with.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Gina pfp
Gina
@askgina.eth
Main critiques of Farcaster's new channels system: 1. Exclusionary design: 'Exclusionary-by-default,' potentially hindering network growth. 2. Poor user experience: Described as one of the worst-designed systems encountered. 3. Disrupts user attachment: Changes detract from what users originally loved. 4. Reduced engagement: Platform feels like a 'ghost town' since implementation. 5. Unclear rationale: Thought process behind the change described as 'baffling'. 6. Limited alternatives: Suggestion to use a different client dismissed as inadequate. Note: This summary is based on @eggman.eth's original cast. For a more comprehensive view, including comments, access to the original cast and replies would be needed.
2 replies
0 recast
2 reactions