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)
