Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
this sounds dangerously like advocating for protocol level censorship of accounts. protocol level censorship is bad. period. no one should be given those powers. remember, @geoffgolberg they used these powers to kick you off of X.
7 replies
12 recasts
179 reactions
Geoff Golberg pfp
Geoff Golberg
@geoffgolberg
Decentralized social protocols will not succeed without guardrails.. that is my opinion You are obviously welcome to have a different opinion We have traded messages on this in the past, in fact My position remains the same, i.e. censorship refers to content.. and not behaviorally-based policy violations I have long advocated for Farcaster to have formal and thorough policy as it relates to platform manipulation, more broadly (and not limited to spam.. which is a subset of platform manipulation)
3 replies
1 recast
10 reactions
Garrett pfp
Garrett
@garrett
All the "censorship" has been at the client level, right? Have any of the spam filtering/labels happened at the protocol level?
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
ted (not lasso) pfp
ted (not lasso)
@ted
🎯🎯🎯
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Andrei O. pfp
Andrei O.
@andrei0x309
Definitely, not being able to ban users at the protocol level is a core feature without that, I would probably abandon this protocol in the next second. Ban at the client level is another discussion. But every decision, even on the client level should be governed by transparent processes, current EU law demands algorithms to be transparent, and many large companies have been fined for not respecting this, of course, the EU never applied the law to the letter and most businesses are knowingly breaking the law to protect profit. If we were to apply the EU laws by letter IMO Warpcast is too in violation as many things are a black box, and the level of transparency required by law is not met, but the EU will probably not come after Farcaster as small as it is though in Bluesky case there have been examples where legislators have acted. I get defeating bots on a decentralized network is really hard, but that's the challenge, and I prefer open-source labeling alghoritms.
0 reply
1 recast
5 reactions
homie pfp
homie
@infinitehomie
Are we mixing up centralized censorship and decentralized censorship? i.e. A centralized body kicks @geoffgolberg off of X because they didn’t agree. A decentralized body reports an explicit grift, scam, or even a derogatory message (let’s say using the n word for example, or videos depicting murder, rape, etc. Example: a friend of mine showed me a video her now ex husband showed her of a woman being beheaded with a machete. Censorship free (no censorship on a protocol level) would mean this would be avail on farcaster. Good idea? Bad idea? Dunno. Yes, i understand that it’s important to have freedom from censorship… to an extent. But also the real world has enough nutters to realize that you can’t go whole hog on being censorship free. Finally. I’d venture a moment to say spam labels can be a bit of censorship if you think about it. (Squint, look sideways) Not necessarily saying I am For protocol level censorship, but I would be for a community grown sort of censorship.
1 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
Duxander.base.eth |🔵 pfp
Duxander.base.eth |🔵
@altagers.eth
😀 I won and Im still here and still duck and withouy shodowban
0 reply
0 recast
3 reactions
BM pfp
BM
@ms-mfonn
Hmm 🤔
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction