Unfortunately, the swarm is 99.99999% advertisements for penis enlargement pills. How can a P2P system filter them out? A federated system relies on each admin to filter them out. A centralised system does even better, relying on a single dictator to filter them out. A P2P system requires every user to filter every spam message, together consuming far more effort than the spammer needed to send it.
You can centralize spam lists while still having the base communication protocol decentralized - that way people have the option on making their own decisions on whether "advertisements for penis enlargement pills" are really a problem - and let's be honest that's far from the only thing that gets moderated.
This isn't, and has never been a hard problem. Just pay for people's attention. People you follow don't have to pay, and make that transitive. Penalize people in your network who propagate spam by increasing the cost to get your attention.
If a scammer, advertiser, or some other form of spammer can get a payout just 1% of the time, they will be willing to pay much more than the average person posting the average tweet.
If you make everything explicitly transactional, you will be left with only people trying to make a profit.
Penis enlargement spam is worth like $0.00000001 per message. Any number higher than that makes them lose money. The real problem is that nobody will post on a social media network where you have to pay to post.
Twitter is thronging with blue-check spambots. This idea has been comprehensively disproven. People will pay to spam you.
In fact, judging by the Exodus of non-scammers, only scammers will pay to send you their messages—which makes sense, since they're the ones who expect to turn a profit.
You did not understand what my original post suggested.
I'm not suggesting people pay to be certified.
If a spammer wants to pay me $20 to see their message, I am happy to see it.
Would you be willing to see an ad for $1000? A million? Sure no one would pay it, but you can set whatever limit you want.
No one would want this? Again I don't think you understand what I am proposing.
It isn't a a system that selects exclusively for ads. It selects for people you know, then people they know, and so on, and fades out how often posts show up the further away you get. If someone pays more, then more people will see their message in their network as it compensates people for their attention, starting with the people who value their attention the least.
No one would want this? You think people don't want to get paid for their attention? This is essentially what a job is.
Micropayments are actually a huge problem, which is a big reason why no one has ever successfully implemented what you're suggesting on any large scale. Email spam is a major problem, and has been almost since its inception, yet the only effective solutions have been the ones that increased centralization and made it harder and harder to run your own email server. And even with all of these modern solutions, a LOT of compute is burned by every single MTA to filter out the spam that goes through for their users based on content filtering.
And this disregards the simple fact that the only people willing to pay to have their words seen are people who are getting more money out of this - i.e. spammers (and yes, advertising in general, including "influencers", is spam in my book).
Do the outbound rules of other participants include microtransactions?
And who besides a spammer would pay more than $0 to have their message read by you? If I wrote a blog post about vulnerabilities of blockchains, or how I ran Doom on a pregnancy test, and you don't read it because I'm not paying you, you're losing value, not me. You guarantee an inbox of only spam — but at least you get paid for it.
If you've got great content, I would just follow you. Or someone I follow would follow you, and through the network it would lead to discovery. I want your content, so unless you charge for it, nobody's paying anyone.
If someone wants me to ingest something novel from far outside my network, one way to gain reputation might be to pay a microtransaction fee. I'd be free to choose to set that up as a part of my ingestion algorithm. Or maybe my peers do it, and if they "upvote" the content, I see it.
If my peers start acting poorly and sending spam, I can flag disinterest and my algorithm can naturally start deboosting that part of the network.
With such systems-level control, we should be able to build really excellent tooling, optimization, and statistical monitoring.
Also, since all publications are digitally signed, your content wouldn't have to be routed to me through your node at all. You could in fact never connect to the swarm and I could still read your content if you publish it to a peer that has distribution.
> If someone wants me to ingest something novel from far outside my network, one way to gain reputation might be to pay a microtransaction fee.
Nice in theory. In practice spammers will plant malware to steal microtransaction money from random people and push paid content down your throat for almost nothing.
When you propose a novel model that will fix all the current problems, the first thing you need to think is how a bad actor would exploit it.
I don't agree. I think the chief problem with advertising is that it is extremely repetitive. I'm not, in principle, opposed to being informed about new things relevant to my interests existing. In a world that is completely oversaturated with content, it is hard to gain traction on something new with word-of-mouth alone, even if it is of very high quality. There is a point to being informed about something existing for the first time (maybe I'll use it), and there is a reason why people would have to pay to make use of that informational system (the barrier to entry is necessary to make the new thing stand out in the ocean of garbage).
Advertising is never going to inform you - it is by definition about persuasion, not information. An advertisement is always designed to try to convince you to buy a different product than you would rationally choose yourself. Even a seller in a physical market telling you their tomatoes are very sweet and juicy is simply trying to get you to buy: they have no idea, and don't care, if their tomatoes really are sweet and juicy (and definitely not sweeter and juicier than all the others tomatoes in the market), they just think you're more likely to buy from them if you hear that.
> An advertisement is always designed to try to convince you to buy a different product than you would rationally choose yourself.
Perhaps you could consider toning down the absolutism. This is true in many or most cases, but certainly not all cases. Let's take, for example, video games. I can afford to purchase any game that interests me, and do. However, I often go several months between new game purchases, because I am not aware of any games that interest me that I do not already own. An advertisement for a game does not need to convince me to purchase it over an alternative product, it simply needs to make me aware of its existence and broadly convey what the game is about so that I will know whether it matches my specific game interests closely enough to investigate further.
Particularly in the modern world of hyper-specialised interests, it's quite easy to get into a niche of a hobby where you have found and already purchased all of the things you are aware of. As another example, there are hyper-specific novel genres where there are at most a couple of dozen entries in that genre and you are able to read every single entry in it. You are still interested in that genre, and will likely purchase anything else in it, should you become aware of it. Enter the benevolent advertisement, which makes you aware of its existence in a mutually beneficial way wherein you get more of the content you are interested in consuming and the creator gets money.
> An advertisement for a game does not need to convince me to purchase it over an alternative product, it simply needs to make me aware of its existence and broadly convey what the game is about so that I will know whether it matches my specific game interests closely enough to investigate further.
I agree that it does not need to do more than inform you - but that doesn't mean it won't do more. Please show me a single advertisement for a game that doesn't use bombastic language, show highly selective graphics, or appeal to a sense of nostalgia. I for one haven't seen one, even ones for the niche indie games I respect the most. Sure, not all commercials are equally deceitful, but they are all meant to be persuasive more than informative.
I don't exactly go around saving advertisements, but plainly informational ones do exist here and there. Off of memory, an example of an indie game trailer I think is well-made is that of Wargroove[1]. It's a simple and clear clip reel of gameplay showing off a variety of content and features, and if I recall correctly, advertisements for it were simply smaller slices of the trailer. I think there's nothing offensive about advertisements like this existing (although, that said, the number of times I wish to see such an advertisement is still exactly once).
I will grant you that this type of advertisement is indeed benign (though if I were really really really nitpicky, I could claim that the pace of gameplay shown in the trailer is probably not indicative of how you'd play the actual game, and I'm not sure if the music is part of the game soundtrack).
Still, I think this is such a tiny minority of real advertisment that it's barely worth mentioning. For example, here is a trailer for the original The Binding of Isaac, which (while being an interesting piece of art in itself, which many ads are) is stil clearly not just meant to inform consumers about the game, but instead is meant to sell a certain image of the game that it may or may not invoke in you:
I'd also note that advertisments for artistic products such as games are some of the most ambiguous about the line between informative and persuasive, as the "feel" (atmosphere, tone, persuasive storytelling etc) of the final product is an intrinsic part of its value in a way that is not relevant for, say, produce, or consumer goods. It could be argued, for example, that the Story trailer for Elden Ring captures a real and important part of the appeal of that game, despite it including 0 details about the gameplay, and despite it being entirely original footage and dialog that is not in any way part of the game itself. The same ambiguity doesn't exist about an ad showing the glamorous lifestyle of someone who gets a mobile phone plan from company X, in contrast.
Ah yes, the sybil attack.
This is why establishing an identity is useful, and worthwhile. An identity with no proof is likely not a real person, and therefore has little value in being advertised to.
If you're a real person, then yes, it is valuable to show you things.
Want to know how I'm right? Because fingerprinting browsers and tracking people is how we establish that they are real in the current advertising world. Advertisers pay for that. Thus it has value.
