Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ghostlinkz
@ghostlinkz.eth
FC Top 30 Active Users (March vs April) I don't enjoy saying this, but there's a significant amount of spam and bots inflating the protocol stats. Don't take my word for it, examine the data. Perhaps we should start saying active "accounts" rather than "users."
9 replies
2 recasts
6 reactions
Tony D’Addeo
@deodad
I like the accounts / users distinction Farcaster is a protocol, as long as its rules are followed it intentionally makes no distinction users are a subjective subset of this that might map to unique human beings or unique human beings who’s content I don’t think is spammy or some other definition
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Geoff Golberg
@geoffgolberg
What is very much needed is a formal (and thorough!) spam and platform manipulation policy Here is X’s, as an example https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
phil
@phil
twitter is widely argued to be one of the worst large scale social media platforms at fighting spam bots how would having a legalese policy for a protocol help improve what developers actually care about, which is quality users for their applications?
2 replies
0 recast
0 reaction
Geoff Golberg
@geoffgolberg
I am referring to mitigating against CIB (coordinated inauthentic behavior) and platform manipulation, more broadly Terms like "spam," "bots," and "spam bots" are thrown around with great frequency.. when it's actually a far more nuanced discussion And I am not talking about the protocol layer here Policy = clarity
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
phil
@phil
Who wrote the spam policy for SMTP? What about SMS? Clients are free to do what they want. If Warpcast wants to further clarify their position on what qualifies as a bot they are welcome to, but have no obligation. If users want more clarity they can continue to speak up or find alternative clients who focus on this.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
