Replying to Avatar hh

I am in favor of your main argument - freedom of choice, which trumps everything else, and you didn't need to try and justify it in any other way.

The additional examples or reasons you give are wrong.

When you interact with someone irl you are not riding on someone's infrastructure. I think one of the reasons they give for the changes is reducing cpu and memory load. This seems valid.

Then you also say that paid interactions force users to ground on the material aspects and away from emotion. But we know from fiat social media that the exact opposite is the true risk. Those who look for extreme engagement end up producing highly emotional content.
Avatar
Quentin 2y ago 💬 1

I like your point of view, but. Do you know that we are simply passing the load to the LN network? The overload argument doesn't make sense to me, people will comment, one kind of event will go down and another kind will go up.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
hh 2y ago

Well yes, precisely. One kind of event that is purportedly assigned greater value (reposts, quotes, comments, zaps) will go up, while the other type with low or no value (reactions) goes down. That's precisely the argument they make and is correct. Economic incentive.