A divide I sense in the Bot Problem Discourse is whether you think it's possible to exclude antisocial actors from an open network. Call these positions "idealism" and "fatalism."

Idealists think we can intervene and limit the long term growth of spam with the right incentives, credentials, and some social (network) engineering. It makes a lot of sense if you think Farcaster is closer to a closed platform like Twitter.

Fatalists think the long term growth of spam is inevitable and in the long run this will always be the majority of activity on the network. So we need to get really good at filtering. It makes a lot of sense if you think Farcaster is closer to an open protocol like email.

Another dimension on top is optimism vs pessimism: whether you think the negative effects can be mitigated. I can't speak for everyone, but working close to the protocol has made me much more of a fatalist optimist.

I'm eth newbie..just learning
(working on @farcaster)

terminally.online

we might need to gather together as we did in the past,to share our GPG public keys so we know for real that you are not a bot.

I would say things are going to become more and more complicated because even non-bots use AI to improve their casts, fix grammar errors or convey in a better way their message. Let's see how it evolves.