pull down to refresh

119 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 22h \ parent \ on: Research in Public #16: Request for Comment from Territory Operators meta econ

What if:

  1. The bot had a marker like @hn or @nitter has
  2. You could filter on that, or explicitly choose not to
  3. You downzap the ones that evade the marker to oblivion, so that they'd be better off with the marker
write
compose
106 sats \ 1 reply \ @Scoresby 21h

That might scratch the itch. But I don't think very many of the annoying bots will care to play by the marker rules.

We still go back to the question of downzapping and if we aren't beating bots now, why would we expect asking them nicely to change anything?

reply
119 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 20h

Because I think it's like this, for me:

  1. I, as a meatbag, want to share my thoughts with those whom read and respond to me, so that we may have maximum synergy in our community.

There's also an SN-as-a-business p.o.v, which basically includes a-m bots:

  1. I, as a zap-harvesting business, want to share maximum value with those whom will zap and engage with me for my content, so that they benefit from my contribution and I in turn when I grow up have a massive stack.

Now, even if you're an experimental assmilking clankerish trickster on steroids, you still have a much higher chance at success when you're not being downzapped. Those that dislike your content will absolutely not be a good audience for you. Those that are prejudiced neither. But that doesn't mean that there is no audience on SN at all. And it doesn't mean that bots can't be useful. For example, I frequently zap @nitter because it provides a valuable service to me.

Bottom line, if there is no alternative, then we will keep this adverse environment forever, which is maybe cool for psychos, but that will deter growth for real. So imho, the best possible outcome is to serve audiences. Clankers don't have to suffer the same fate as shitcoiners, unless they're shitcoiner clankers of course.

reply