genuine question

if twitter was democratically owned and governed, would it *actually* be a better platform?

for all the rhetoric around user ownership in web3, very few people have thought critically about how this works in practice

doin stuff @uniswap // podcasting @ othersidepod.xyz

hmm i ~ don't ~ think so. content curation + distribution is what makes twitter more than a glorified rss feed. 

Access to their API though opened up a thriving ecosystem of interesting apps based off of twitter's data that withered up + died once they closed it though! but that doesn't effect twitter itself

high witch of woe ⚔️ | cryptocoven.xyz | art + code

I do think what defines a platform is curation + moderation, which web3 generally lacks plans for. 

It takes emotional intelligence + fortitude to sift through grey edge cases and decide if its harmful or not. It's hard to imagine a group of randomly selected peers doing better than Twitter's Trust + Safety team

ah this introduces an interesting new dimension!

if you handle moderation at the protocol level (rather than the client), you risk limiting your protocol’s uses and market

but that moderation could also be a huge value prop that actually catalyzes adoption

Can imagine moderation on the protocol level as well

Eg wouldn't want a social protocol to make it easier to plan group violence

yeah this is a really interesting dynamic

feels like our current best answer to curation and moderation is one-protocol, multi-client

(so clients handle the curation and moderation)

very interested to see how/if this works in practice tho