thoughts on interesting content

there’s no such thing as objectively interesting content

therefore there’s no black box that can take a piece of content and tell you if it’s interesting 

objectively uninteresting content (from a humans perspective) is more of a thing

random numbers, the letter repeated 723 times, contextless single word replies

you can build a block box that does a reasonably good job of identifying uninteresting content (given contextual inputs like who’s saying it)

Building @warpcast and @farcaster / dad / like to read, cook, ski, code

great points! some related thoughts..

- there is no way to get a 'global' consensus on interesting content. rather its possible to agree on 'relevant' content for a user, based on their engagement. 

> 'in the ideal world each person would have a local weight for every other person depending on how similar their taste was in practice this is hard to do but not impossible at the end of the day someone has to decide what those weights are'
this is exactly what openrank does for personalized/for-you user graph and feed. deciding weights can be an iterative exercise to optimize performance

- an opinionated global or community specific user rating is extremely useful for consensus on distributing social capital and economic value to users. this isn't possible in web2 social platforms, but can be done with open social graphs. I believe this can be a big unlock with channels on farcaster.