pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @suidoc 28 Oct 2022 \ parent \ on: The Firings Begin: Twitter CEO, CFO, & Top Censor Escorted Out bitcoin
To me it seems like having a third party deciding on what is spam and what is not just raises an attack surface on free speech. They could decide your inappropiate opinion is "spam" and simply block you.
By imposing a real cost, it would no longer be profitable for spammers. 1 sat is not a lot for the individual, but for a spammer it would be a significant cost.
To me it seems like having a third party deciding on what is spam and what is not just raises an attack surface on free speech.
It actually protects it, because when you have Twitter deciding what is spam and what, look what happens. A social media need functionality where 3rd parties can sign or give checkmarks, it should not only be the social media company. Also social media is a huge project, u manage servers, UX, content moderation. No single company can do all things well. So split up social now! Lets have voluntary 3rd party vetting and signing of messages. Lets see what happens
reply
It's called government and this is a terrible idea
reply
there is no use of force involved its voluntary so by definition its not government
reply