I hate to be the person to open this topic, but Farcaster is not a "sufficiently decentralized" social network, right now. 

"A social network achieves sufficient decentralization if two users can find each other and communicate, even if the rest of the network wants to prevent it",  @v, on "Sufficient Decentralization and Social Networks".

I would argue that right now, a judge in California and a judge in Delaware, or a single federal judge, can censor a user regardless of where they are, even if they are in Canada, Europe, Australia, Mexico, or any other place in the world, regardless of the Farcaster client they use.

This is one of the cases, I would love someone to explain to me that I'm terribly wrong. Or, if I'm right, let's have a path on how we can change this. @dwr.eth?

https://www.varunsrinivasan.com/2022/01/11/sufficient-decentralization-for-social-networks

[insert never was / always has been meme] 

Optionality dies the moment preferences becomes stated. This makes founders uneasy. 

Each quadrant captures a different dynamic between individual optionality & collective clarity. 

Paradox: Revealed preference protects individual leverage. Stated preference enables collective clarity.

The longer one withholds alignment/disclosure, the more others are forced to guess, stall, or follow power & as we joked at SAP- submit & pray Hasso is correct. In this way, personal optionality scales as systemic fragility.

There’s a healthy tension to be found but lately there are signs the bdfl will have his way- always. 😆✌️💜