[DigitalToday reporter Jinju Hong] David Schwartz, Ripple's honorary chief technology officer (CTO), has come out against blanket artificial intelligence (AI) content filtering to block cryptocurrency scams. He argues that automatically filtering scam posts could infringe freedom of expression and weaken the community's ability to spot and share new threats.

On Oct. 25 local time, blockchain media outlet U.Today reported that Schwartz joined a debate on social media platform X, formerly Twitter, over how to respond to XRP scams and pointed to limits of strong automated filtering policies.

The debate flared after calls that platforms should be required to adopt strong filters so users can completely block XRP scam ads and posts from their personal feeds. As fake giveaway-style scams touting offers such as "2-to-1 XRP" recur, demands have grown to strengthen platform blocking measures.

Schwartz, however, said a one-size-fits-all approach to hiding scam content is not necessarily effective from a cybersecurity standpoint. He said if experts and users lose the chance to see scam tactics directly, it could become harder to detect new threats early and warn other users.

He said platforms should maintain both the ability to block scam posts and the function of sharing risk information. Citing instances in which he has found phishing attacks himself and warned the cryptocurrency ecosystem, Schwartz stressed that voluntary community monitoring and information sharing play an important role in security.

He also voiced concern about attempts to create a perfectly safe online space. He said an approach aimed at creating a so-called "safe vacuum" could undermine freedom of expression and weaken the collective defence system of online communities. He added that focusing only on reducing exposure to scam content could also blunt users' ability to identify and respond to threats.

The argument also intersects with debate around a lawsuit filed by the U.S. state of Rhode Island against Meta Platforms. Issues in the case include whether Meta earned revenue from optimised scam ads by using internal AI tools and how much responsibility platforms should bear for fraud.

Schwartz also took a critical view of AI automatically deleting posts based solely on the possibility of fraud. Calling it a "dead end," he said broad removals based on the potential for deception could block legitimate posts as well. He warned that speech protected by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment could also become subject to automatic filtering.

Schwartz also urged a cautious approach to how far to recognise platforms' legal liability. He likened blaming big tech for criminal acts to holding a restaurant responsible for serving food to terrorists. The thrust of his argument was that responsibility should rest with those who directly commit crimes or devise criminal methods.

The debate raises questions not only about how the cryptocurrency industry responds to scams but also about boundaries around AI-based content management and platform liability. Regulators are demanding stronger scam-blocking measures from platforms, but some in the industry say automatic filtering alone makes it hard to respond effectively to new threats.

Ultimately, the core issue is how to ensure users' expression and information sharing while reducing scam content. Schwartz's remarks highlighted the need to find a balance between AI-driven automatic blocking and voluntary community monitoring systems.