The easiest way to evangelize a new social network is to tell someone there is an audience for their interests/ content type “already built in.” 

Channels helped organize users by topic to show what kind of audience you could get. 

I will die on this hill and probably eventually drop off farcaster because of it but at least I spoke my mind before I did.

How many people agree secretly with this channels take? 

How many people see opportunity and are watching the opportunity be passed by? 

Merkle says we are in the minority and so our take bears no weight. 

But what if channels were cultivated to enable long form discussion. 

So much here.

❤️Cozy➗writing➗music➗movies➗/woodenboats 💌start a conversation with me here🟰 https://shorturl.at/moT16 | meganmichelle.com 

Have spent more time on channels than any feature in the entire history of Farcaster.

Unsolved problems

1. Moderation is a lot of work

2. If you reduce moderation work, then new users can't participate

3. If you make easy for new users, moderation is too much work for most people

4. No moderation, channel is a bad UX for people and you can't recommend much content from it

Working on Farcaster and Warpcast. Longer thoughts at https://dwr.email

I agree with Merkle not being Facebook sized enough to take on automating moderation, but what does 2 mean?
Invite only channels exclude new users?

Hacker founder using ai to coordinate onchain economies @tenfold, nounish channel client /comint

More: rubinovitz.com

If you don't want to do moderation, then you have to close channels (like they are now), i.e. membership model