I mean every memo user has a chance (for some $$$/hour) to censor (silence) for a limited time any one other user. Yes, it is negative reinforcement but at least it is distributed.
Not only is censorship always bad, but this idea doesn't even make sense technically. Memo (the protocol) is uncensorable by definition, since anyone can broadcast a bitcoin tx. (1/3)
Your client could be set up to ignore dislikes if you want, or to color posts that have a lot of dislikes, or whatever. It's just machine readable info on how some feel about the post.
Agreed, I was referring to the suggestion that people will be able to pay to censor others, site-wide. That's a very different mechanism.
I have already commented on what I meant by site-wide in my response to @memo. Site means website, not the blockchain.
It's not censorship, it's information. Censorship is saying you can only say you like something but not that you don't like something. What *you* do with the info is up to you.
If you're referring to downvotes, I agree, they are informative. But censorship is never informative. Express your opinion, positive or negative, but don't hide other people's content.
be visible on other, interoperable sites? Just adding a mute option, so YOU will not see posts from certain people YOU don't like, makes a lot more sense. (3/3)
Memo.cash (the site) can choose to hide certain posts, but other memo sites will pop up that don't. You're suggesting we pay the admins of a site to censor posts that will still (2/3)
How is this necessary if you don't follow people who you don't want to hear from? If someone you follow is constantly posing annoying crap, why not just unfollow them?
Two diffs. 1, this is only temporary. I responded when I was annoyed with MikeFromTheUK incessant posts. I trust he won't do that all the time.
2, this would be site wide, help others.
What if someone paid to constantly censor someone else?
Well if you don't want to keep that money, you can distribute it to the community. It has to be somewhat expensive.
I'm not sure people would react well to a feature that allowed someone to be censored all the time. Especially on a platform that advertises itself as uncensorable :P
Good point. Not sure what you want, uncensorable or community moderated. If someone keeps paying to keep an individual shut up on site, the "censored" memos can still be viewed onchain
You might think that's hyperbole but I assure you it's not. In China you get special privileges via your improved social score for turning in political dissidents. Mob rule is not fun.
Also, I doubt China is a good example for what I mean by community moderated. On memo, one turns nobody in to higher authority.
For now! Get a million people on here and see how every little rule you make effects things. Especially if there are whistleblowers and political dissidents.
That sounds like fun! The other thing is, if you are so inclined, for a little $$$ you can also protect your favorite whistleblower from being silenced!
A real marketplace of ideas. Of course there are a few on here that don't believe in free markets.
North Korea(and other communist countries) are "community moderated". It's one way the dictators maintain control. You can make you own memo client, idk if anyone will use it though.
No, I didn't mean "community moderated" as in N. Korea ;)
Ah yes, I should be able to "help others" see things that I think they shouldn't see. What could go wrong?
Is there a mechanism that could be put in place that doesn't involve censorship? Blocking maybe? Down votes are a good idea, this is an interesting discussion.
