Varun Srinivasan
@v
“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.
58 replies
63 recasts
438 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
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
55 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
No one likes spammy FC accounts. No one wants XEN to take up all the block space on Ethereum. No one wants spam in their inbox. But the solution is not to have some arbiter who bans things at the protocol level that they do not like.
1 reply
0 recast
35 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
The right solution is quality filters - build tools that filter out content that is not interesting to you. Priority mode is our first step in this direction. It’s not perfect but it’s MUCH better than what came before and we will keep improving it.
2 replies
0 recast
36 reactions
Varun Srinivasan
@v
What we will NOT do is start removing accounts from the protocol. This is dangerous and threatens there credible neutrality of farcaster. Be very wary of anyone who advocates for this.
5 replies
0 recast
46 reactions
slingn.eth
@slingn
👏 👏 👏 Don’t censor the protocol One clients spam is another clients content
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
Thumbs Up
@thumbsup.eth
It’s also futile. You’d spend all your resources removing bots that can be replaced five seconds later by 10x more bots
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
stellabelle 🔪
@stellabelle
and illegal cp? wjat will you do?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chris eberle
@defiginger
@givebot #decentralization
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
2k 🎩
@2k
So fuckin based
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
