Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
Fair warning: if you keep replying with slop to accounts that don’t follow or engage with you, you’ll end up labeled as spam. Be thoughtful. The GPT-assisted attempts are obvious. OK to have a few replies that don’t get any engagement. But if you reply to pretty much every cast and nothing, the problem is most likely you. No one is entitled to another person’s attention.
70 replies
21 recasts
179 reactions
Stephan
@stephancill
1. Is it possible for an account labeled as spam to be unlabeled in the future? Is this process manual or automatic? 2. Is there a dispute process for accounts that have been labeled as spam? 3. Is there a way for an account to see if they have been labeled as spam?
2 replies
1 recast
11 reactions
Kenji
@kenjiquest
Stephan, responding here based on working closely with the Japanese Spam community. We had a group chat and list of close to 100 affected users. 1) It is possible, but like Dan mentions it is manual. We were able to get spam label removed by DMing V or someone close to Dan to make a plea for us. Results were mixed. I too had my label removed by someone vouching for me. 2) Sad to see there is no formal dispute process. At the moment it seems like perhaps DM OGs, pray they respond to your DM or a friend of the OGs to vouch for you to remove manually. 3) There are ways. The incognito test. Have the suspected spam account like a cast. Then copy the link to the liked cast and open a browser in incognito mode and paste the link. This will open Warpcast in a non-logged in state. Look at the liked cast and if the user doesn’t appear in the likes tab, they’re spam. Also you can do the video test. Try to attach a video to a cast from your library. If no videos appear to select, again, you’re spam.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Stephan
@stephancill
thank you for sharing your experience. losing distribution in warpcast is just as good as being kicked off of farcaster today imo i think a dispute process could easily be abused by actual spammers. can you suggest a process that could avoid avoid that being the case?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Dan Romero
@dwr.eth
To clarify: you don't lose distribution (your followers still see your stuff). You lose the ability to tax the attention of people who don't follow you. It's an important distinction. Your audience remains your audience. But discovery is privilege, not a right.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Kenji
@kenjiquest
If spammers can apply and abuse the system, I think then there needs to be a trust or vouching system but more structured. Essentially this is what is already happening. People get others who have a connection to Dan or V with decent background to vouch for them. I am thinking of maybe a Farcaster version of Justice of the Peace like arrangement. (JoPs in Australia are used to sign/witness documents. Typically government sensitive stuff) If we were to introduce structure, I would create a framework where anyone can apply (step 1), but that would just be to start the process. They wouldn’t make any progress unless they can get to step 2 which is the clincher. In step 2, they would need to get a “sign” (digital agreement) to vouch that this person isn’t spam by 1 or 2 “JoPs” or community approved Voucherers. Once this is done, the application progresses to the final review stage and the spam label is removed (or not) and the application concludes. Maybe see who wants to volunteer to be a JoP.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
