Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has responded to criticism after referring to those projects as corposlop, in his opinion, focusing on corporate interests instead of empowering users.
In his defence, Buterin pointed out that his criticism was not to be understood as censorship, and noted that free speech is not to suppress criticism, but only to limit access to platforms.
Buterin’s stance on censorship and free speech
Buterin attempted to draw a line between personal criticism and censorship, as he said that speaking up on particular platforms did not imply that one should not allow people to use these platforms.
He emphasized that users have no obligation to listen to his views but will not affect their access to Ethereum and all its applications.
By saying that corposlop is your application, I am not censoring you, Buterin explained, but far from being inconsistent, my criticism conforms to the larger principle of free speech.
Moreover, Buterin explained that Ethereum was open to everybody, even those who do not concur with his personal beliefs.
You do not need to concur with me about what applications are and are not corposlop to use Ethereum, enhancing the idea of a permissionless protocol.
He further stressed that Ethereum is decentralized and, as such, no single person, including himself, can regulate or dictate the use of Ethereum.
Criticism of “Corposlop” and the shift in platform goals
The idea of the corposlop critique is aimed at Butterin, criticizing the recent trend in the blockchain sector where platforms are designed to optimize on-the-fly opportunities to engage users and generate revenue rather than offering long-term user value.
This trend, in his opinion, has resulted in the emergence of products that focus on corporate maximization that, to him, are not conducive to the initial vision of Ethereum.
However, he has recently targeted prediction markets, which he considers to be dopamine-driven gambling platforms that deal with cryptocurrency price prediction and sports betting.
Buterin believes that such products do not provide any valuable service to users; on the contrary, they are concentrated on short-term trends.
Buterin also added that platforms must focus on innovation and user-centric objectives, and not be limited to short-term financial profit.
He feels that the increasing focus on trends and engagement metrics at the expense of substantive innovation is a bad way to take the decentralized technologies.
Neutrality protocol vs. neutrality builder
Buterin seized the chance to explain the difference between protocol neutrality and the subjective perceptions of the same by the people behind it.
He emphasized that although decentralized protocols, such as Ethereum, have to be apolitical and open to all, developers and creators are free to show their own cultural, political, and ethical perspectives.
In his comments, Buterin has made it clear that Ethereum is neutral because of the code behind it, but developers are free to develop on the code and use principles that reflect their ideologies.
With this, he sees that it can enable an active ecosystem in which a variety of values can be voiced and in the process keeping the integrity of the decentralized underpinnings of Ethereum.
An appeal to principle-based innovation
Finally, Buterin reaffirmed that Ethereum is open so that no single ideology takes control over Ethereum.
He supports the stance of balance between the protocol level of neutrality and the freedom of expression of personal principles on the individual level.
By encouraging what he considers a more principle-focused approach to technology, Buterin aims to create an ecosystem where user interests and innovation, rather than corporate-owned trends, are of greater importance.
