Following my post from yesterday (below), I thought I'd briefly reflect on another factor relating to the importance of BBS. The last post focused on society -- this will focus on the individual (and how this affects the entire network).

The Societal Importance of the BBS Network As a Londoner, I hold dear the iconic speakers’ corner: a place where anyone can say (almost) anything, freely. It is considered a beacon for free speech and democracy. With the revolution of our communication (the internet) has come a problem: the power of who decides what is allowed to be said is given to an unelected handful of people, be it Twitter, Facebook, Spotify, etc. What we have seen in recent years is these companies censoring text that they deem to be unacceptable. Whether you agree with their decisions or not – why should a company be able to decide what free speech is acceptable or not? Now back to the speakers' corner. Speakers’ corner is the opposite of platforms such as Twitter. For one, people (used to) engage civilly. But more importantly – on a political level – there is no central authority that decides who says what. All those engaging in conversation decide this themselves, by virtue of debate. The problem with regular computer networks, when it comes to this, is that they follow the client-server model. This puts one server in charge of the network, at let’s it decides what can be posted, in the case of social platforms. But along came Satoshi Nakamoto and created blockchain: a peer-to-peer system, where everyone on the network is an equal participant. He applied it to money. @Eyal Hertzog applied it to communication. In the most important and profound sense, BBS is “<b>the speakers’ corner of the internet</b>”. A blockchain-based network where anyone can say (almost) anything freely. Perhaps it too will be considered a beacon for free speech and democracy, one day.

Recently, Canadian psychologist and philosopher Jordan Peterson tweeted the following: 

Dr Jordan B Peterson on Twitter “perhaps if it cost a nickel (or at least something) to tweet, or leave a youtube comment--this goes for all SM platforms--there would be some disincentive for careless and inflammatory rhetoric. The true cost of communication is not zero. Our social pricing model is wrong.”

Unlike regular communication, there is no cost of posting something bad on Twitter, is what he's saying. If you do so anonymously, you do not risk your reputation. You do not lose your money. There's nothing to disincentivise you. "Our social pricing model is wrong". So from a rational and psychological point of view , there is no reason not to be an idiot online. 

If you're an idiot on Twitter, the chances are nothing will happen. But on BBS -- there is an opportunity cost: your reputation as a poster. 

You see, because BBS's reward system is monetary, reputation does matter, even if you are anonymous. To put it bluntly -- if you have a history of being an idiot, who is going to buy posts from you? Who is going to whitelist you? As Elon Musk recently pointed out, we are evolutionarily hard-wired so that 

Elon Musk on Twitter “Reasons to hate are remembered better than reasons to love”

. As such, an idiot on BBS will be sacrificing their future ownings. Their reputation matters. 

The result of this is an in-built quality filter to the network. 

Careless and inflammatory rhetoric will cost you money.  This is the right social pricing model.