Varun Srinivasan on Warpcast

Varun Srinivasan pfp

Varun Srinivasan

“Farcaster must remove all the bots” This is a worrying line of thinking I’m seeing more often. The argument goes that it’s not enough to hide uninteresting content. It *must* be removed from the protocol. That is, someone must judge the worthiness of accounts and delete them from the protocol.

57 replies

46 recasts

309 reactions

Varun Srinivasan pfp

Varun Srinivasan

Ethereum does not judge the worthiness of your transaction. If you pay the fee, you can make it happen. Even email doesn’t ban accounts. It only filters spam into a separate inbox. It is very important for credible neutrality that no one has the power to delete accounts that they do not like.

2 replies

0 recast

42 reactions

Devin Conley pfp

Any related thoughts about hub sharding or syncing data subsets? Agreed that there should never be an explicit "ban" at the protocol level, but also hard to scale for smaller hub infra without any ability to prefer content of interest

1 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Jason Goldberg Ⓜ️ 💜 pfp

Jason Goldberg Ⓜ️ 💜

bots, spam, stuff you don't want to see -- will always be there it makes no sense to try to "remove it' from the protocol the focus should be entirely on removing it from the front end UX -- which is a client/app responsibility not a protocol responsibility (like gmail spam filters and promotions tabs for email)

1 reply

0 recast

13 reactions

Launchcaster pfp

0 reply

0 recast

7 reactions

gill pfp

right on. this is definitely a client level issue, and even a community level issue! it's also tough for a client to handle a problem created by communities building low quality incentive mechanisms that makes it worthwhile for bad actors to build sophisticated bots/engagement farms that will spam timelines everywhere

3 replies

0 recast

3 reactions

aferg pfp

@aaronrferguson

Doesn’t sound very decentralized to me!

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Chaotic Neutral pfp

Chaotic Neutral

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Ahahahahahahaha pfp

Ahahahahahahaha

The targeted attacks at you and dan seems peculiar. As if insinuating the bot surge is somehow orchestrated but you both. It's hilarious.

1 reply

0 recast

2 reactions

Darryl Yeo 🛠️ pfp

Darryl Yeo 🛠️

👏👏👏 Keep Farcaster credibly neutral!

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

depatchedmode pfp

And: some bots are useful.

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

drew 🌊 pfp

Also worth noting that some bots are good! e.g. @vangogh :)

0 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

jacopo.eth pfp

embrace the bots

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Geoff Golberg pfp

Let’s debate live publicly Your spin is off the charts ser

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

m_j_r pfp

it's much more a pathfinding challenge between social animals than it is a cannibalistic jungle where any entity gets got. idk where the culture of fearmongering a class of entity originated, but it's not adaptive to modern circumstances.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

pol pfp

I'm actually surprised that some people ask you to remove bots. Farcaster's inability to do so is actually not a bug but a feature. That's the very reason why people can trust Farcaster.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

ciefa 🐌 eth/acc pfp

ciefa 🐌 eth/acc

Incredibly based. Farcaster is the future o7

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

kbc pfp

It's short sighted thinking that puts humans on a pedestal and equates bots as something bad. 1. Bots "learn" engagement farming from humans. 2. What is spam for me, is gold for you.

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

Aryan 🎩 pfp

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction

henry pfp

there will always be bots on online services - if they are completely cleared out, they will return several hours later… as a user, the ability to mute / report bots could be powerful - if a bot is contributing positively then it won’t be reported much a bad bot would be reported a lot - easier moderation

0 reply

0 recast

0 reaction