> I think requiring some sort of proof of being a real person before being able to post content might be how this shakes out, similar to accounts requiring a valid phone, or services with KYC requirements
While, on a descriptive level, I believe that your idea of the implementation of this would win, on a normative level, I would argue that such an approach would be privacy-destroying and very dangerous for human freedoms and tyranny-resistance - simply because it's very hard to prove that you are a human without also indicating that you are a particular human.
A privacy-preserving alternative might be to build a "web of trust", where the nodes don't actually have to be proven to be owned by a human (or by a particular human), but the reputation associated with the nodes still allows humans to curate meaningful non-spam content.
With email/SMS spam, we have tools like Hashcash[1] that imposes a cost on each spam message (which is disproportionately burdensome on spammers), but I don't think that that works with "published" spam (as opposed to "direct" spam).
While, on a descriptive level, I believe that your idea of the implementation of this would win, on a normative level, I would argue that such an approach would be privacy-destroying and very dangerous for human freedoms and tyranny-resistance - simply because it's very hard to prove that you are a human without also indicating that you are a particular human.
A privacy-preserving alternative might be to build a "web of trust", where the nodes don't actually have to be proven to be owned by a human (or by a particular human), but the reputation associated with the nodes still allows humans to curate meaningful non-spam content.
With email/SMS spam, we have tools like Hashcash[1] that imposes a cost on each spam message (which is disproportionately burdensome on spammers), but I don't think that that works with "published" spam (as opposed to "direct" spam).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash