Edit: Just to clarify, in my response I think blacklist != censorship, if a blacklist can be altered by anyone on their own system.
You seem to have interpreted what I said slightly deeper than what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest there could be some widespread censorship. I imagine you could stake to create an account and then you could vote someone as a spammer - voting causes you and the person you voted to have to wait N more time before withdrawing (harms both accounts). If many people vote V for someone as a spammer that account would have V*N delay. I'm not saying they're censored, I'm saying they just have to wait longer before withdrawing to make a new account.
Add to this a simple blacklist system like how some antivirus tools collaborate, sharing hashes. You can pick your own third-party list of spam hashes based on different rules, or modify/build your own. Using your example of an account getting 100k spam reports on-chain; auto-add them to such a blacklist. Realise your favourite person has been spam-attacked in the way you describe? Whitelist that account. Like how you allow some apps you know are safe to run on your computer.
This is super rudimentary and pretty quickly thought of, but I feel like you could get halfway and that's all I'd really care for. No-one here is censored btw, as in like how Trump was kicked off Twitter, they're simply blocked by default for you based on an algorithm you choose and can be whitelisted again if you want.
You could add smarter methods like checking strings for common spammy terms, such as all those fake Elon accounts on Twitter saying the same things, and auto add them to a list. You could have a quadratic spam voting system where if someone is voted repeatedly the wait they have to withdraw gets longer and longer. You could have a reputation system based on the number of people who say someone is spamming where others have too, but who has never been called spam themselves, who then gets more weight for future votes to blacklist someone.
You could even create psudo-private groups on the system by adding your own accounts to a primary blacklist and then whitelisting each other. Obviously not private because someone could just not use a list, but you'd only see each other to make things easier, like a subset of Twitter.
I don't know, there's loads of small tweaks you can make here, but it feels like you could get a P2P application working better than Twitter in terms of spam if you have the ability to pick your spam prevention model and accounts cost a deposit to setup. Maybe you've worked on this way longer and have thought about these all before and they're provably wrong! FWIW I quit working in crypto earlier this year and am far less invested than others, I'm just also less dismissive of it off the bat.
You seem to have interpreted what I said slightly deeper than what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest there could be some widespread censorship. I imagine you could stake to create an account and then you could vote someone as a spammer - voting causes you and the person you voted to have to wait N more time before withdrawing (harms both accounts). If many people vote V for someone as a spammer that account would have V*N delay. I'm not saying they're censored, I'm saying they just have to wait longer before withdrawing to make a new account.
Add to this a simple blacklist system like how some antivirus tools collaborate, sharing hashes. You can pick your own third-party list of spam hashes based on different rules, or modify/build your own. Using your example of an account getting 100k spam reports on-chain; auto-add them to such a blacklist. Realise your favourite person has been spam-attacked in the way you describe? Whitelist that account. Like how you allow some apps you know are safe to run on your computer.
This is super rudimentary and pretty quickly thought of, but I feel like you could get halfway and that's all I'd really care for. No-one here is censored btw, as in like how Trump was kicked off Twitter, they're simply blocked by default for you based on an algorithm you choose and can be whitelisted again if you want.
You could add smarter methods like checking strings for common spammy terms, such as all those fake Elon accounts on Twitter saying the same things, and auto add them to a list. You could have a quadratic spam voting system where if someone is voted repeatedly the wait they have to withdraw gets longer and longer. You could have a reputation system based on the number of people who say someone is spamming where others have too, but who has never been called spam themselves, who then gets more weight for future votes to blacklist someone.
You could even create psudo-private groups on the system by adding your own accounts to a primary blacklist and then whitelisting each other. Obviously not private because someone could just not use a list, but you'd only see each other to make things easier, like a subset of Twitter.
I don't know, there's loads of small tweaks you can make here, but it feels like you could get a P2P application working better than Twitter in terms of spam if you have the ability to pick your spam prevention model and accounts cost a deposit to setup. Maybe you've worked on this way longer and have thought about these all before and they're provably wrong! FWIW I quit working in crypto earlier this year and am far less invested than others, I'm just also less dismissive of it off the bat.