Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
20 recasts
20 reactions

derek pfp
derek
@derek
This is the beauty of the protocol. It’s not meant for private conversations…but there’s also nothing stopping anyone from building an encryption-first client. All casts published from it are encrypted, need to use that client to read, etc. IMO, we need better zk tooling for true onchain privacy.
1 reply
1 recast
7 reactions

Barry pfp
Barry
@baz.eth
Thanks, Derek Therein lies the problem for me. I'm talking about at scale. If FC's goal is to remain a niche social community, it's fine. If FC's goal is 1B+ DAU, that will require a LOT of mainstream users who don't know better We cannot abdicate privacy at scale and not expect it to have a severe impact
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

derek pfp
derek
@derek
It's a critically important conversation and I'm a huge advocate for onchain privacy (for tons of reasons & in many contexts), but the general lack of privacy in social media is a feature, not a bug. It allows one to own a reputation and influence, which is why people congregate on social media networks to begin with.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction

Barry pfp
Barry
@baz.eth
I'm in total agreement My issue is more that any person can retrieve the entire network of data without any authentication Maybe if we had the data grants at the client level, e.g., Warpcast, so that anyone using that client would be able view the data I approved for that client But at the hub level, it's encrypted
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction