Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions

Stephan pfp
Stephan
@stephancill
@artlu's story is a stark reminder that without meaningful client diversity there is nothing inherently different about farcaster compared to web2 social from a censorship resistance perspective
7 replies
6 recasts
38 reactions

patxol đź”· anser.social  pfp
patxol đź”· anser.social
@patxol.eth
Meh. MM team is working hard to show engaging content to users and create retention. If you are “shadow banned”, it most probably means you are not interesting for most Warpcast users they want to retain.
2 replies
1 recast
1 reaction

Stephan pfp
Stephan
@stephancill
And that is their prerogative Until another client with different policies is able to compete with them farcaster can’t claim to be an improvement on legacy social on the censorship resistance point at least
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions

patxol đź”· anser.social  pfp
patxol đź”· anser.social
@patxol.eth
With 90% of accounts created from Warpcast and having a recovery address controlled by a US based entity, Farcaster is definitely not censorship resistant by default. But it can be for users who want to: Opencast or Herocast, recovery and custody wallets transfered to hardware wallets. Censorship resistance is not a prerequisite for most people.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction

Stephan pfp
Stephan
@stephancill
And there is also no inherent problem with that. People just need to manage their expectations Also alternative clients today don’t contribute to censorship resistance while warpcast controls the overwhelming majority of distribution
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction