> But it's the potential combination of clout and curation Our plan for the Matrix.org server is, in an ideal world, to turn it off once we have portable accou

> But it's the potential combination of clout and curation Our plan for the Matrix.org server is, in an ideal world, to turn it off once we have portable accounts (and especially once we have P2P). Users can easily pick a set of other servers for home, or just use their devices. We have absolutely zero desire for any server to have clout or to end up as a Gmail-style centralisation point. However, in an account-portable world, I suspect all we'll see is that communities (rather than servers) will emerge which have equivalent risk of disproportionate social influence. Then all we can do then is to arm the users with tools which allow them to visualise and curate that influence and make up their own minds, rather than accidentally getting trapped in someone else's filter bubble all over again. > The only solution is to replace the game with something entirely different, the same way for instance, that cryptocurrency did with financial markets. If they had tried to play by the rules of the existing game, it'd have gotten nowhere, because the financial game is designed to specifically stop things like that. From my perspective, introducing a morally relative reputation system as a core primitive in the protocol, is very much replacing the game with something entirely different. Imagine if SMTP had the concept of subjectively modelling spam built in from day 1. Or if the Web had had the concept of subjective search result quality. Nobody has pulled this off before (as far as I know?) but we're having a go at it to see what happens. If it goes horribly wrong then worst case we just turn it off as a failed experiment.