And you are in charge of determining which review is real and which is Fake News?
What committee or universal algo will decide this?
THIS IS WHAT WE CAME HERE TO ESCAPE.
Discussion
Why are you defending the indefensible?
It doesn’t matter if I think something’s real or fake.
We’re talking about the difference between someone earnestly saying “I watched the movie, and it sucked.” Fine.
And someone creating 1000 bot reviews of your movie saying it sucks in different ways so that no one sees it.
How is this not obvious to you?
Because the bots are code and also free speech. Who determines what are the good bots and the bad bots? Who died and made them King of Bots?
Nobody. Nobody has that power and nobody should want that power.
Anyone can write anything, so long as I don't have to read it and I don't have to let them write on relays I pay for.
That’s exactly what the bot in question is doing! Deciding who the good and bad posters are. And you are defending it!
If we agree that no one should be the arbiter of good and bad bots, surely no one should be the arbiter of good and bad people.
And therein lies Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance: the only thing we cannot tolerate is Intolerance because it destroys tolerance..
So if someone else is destroying your free speech, you should not tolerate that as speech. If someone is saying disagreeable things, that’s speech that, however disagreeable, should be tolerated.
He is voicing his personal opinion. He is not deciding for everyone, everywhere.
Don't like his opinion? Mute him.
No he is not!
If someone doesn’t like my movie and voices his personal opinion on it, fine.
If someone doesn’t like my movie and creates a bot to post 1,000 negative reviews to deter others from ever seeing it, that is not.
I can mute the bot creator, sure, but now no one will see my movie, my speech is curtailed, not due to his negative opinion on it, but due to his actions to mislead others into thinking 1,000 independent people share his opinion when they don’t.
These bots are a scourge, and though opportunists absolutely will build them, if you don’t create an ethos to enact a reputational cost, I think we’ll soon find the public square here less usual than Twitter.
less *useful*
You are missing the fact that the other people can write bots that mute bots and we have tools like WoT and relay separation to reduce data noise.
Humans will have the ability to curate their feed and clients and relays can adjust settings and offer filters.
But that's all the part you so don't want, so whatever. Done discussing it.
You’re missing the part that just because it’s code doesn’t excuse bad behavior including fraud, doxxing, libel, etc.
No idea you have a problem with me calling it out and encouraging others not to tolerate it as a matter of principle.
Same reason bitcoiners call out shitcoiners. Just because you can build a shitty scam coin doesn’t mean you should.
We can stop talking about it, no problem though.
Some free speech is freer than other, it seems, if one puts enough resources into it.
Those who shout the loudest (e.g. with a gov't sponsored botfarm) will always mute the voices of sanity.
I've spent enough time on unregulated media to confirm this: where the mainstream propaganda is silent, "anti-mainstream" and equally absurd propaganda rises.
Nostr doesn't seem to be an exception as of now.
It's not. Everything that can be boted is doomed to change. A bot that censors other bots is also just a bot and all of that ends in a huge bot war wasting lot's of resources. No more human interaction necessary.
The good news is, that you can run your own relay with your friends. But there's no fame in it 😘