>Why is this? Because it has no value? Because itʻs sometimes false? Certainly itʻs not causing offline harm. >No, no, and no. Fundamentally disagree with

>Why is this? Because it has no value? Because itʻs sometimes false? Certainly itʻs not causing offline harm. >No, no, and no. Fundamentally disagree with his take on spam. Not only does spam have no value, it has negative value. The content of the spam itself is irrelevant when the same message is being pushed out a million times and obscuring all other messages. Reducing spam through rate-limiting is certainly the easiest and most impactful form of moderation.