What is a Nostr app, relay or service you use (or you created yourself) that is underappreciated and you think deserves that more people try it?

Regardless of the contents of this discussion, reading that thread from the Blacksky guy made me realize one thing: if you're using a hosted PDS (the blue circle in this diagram: View article →) (and of course most users will not run their own PDS) it might decide to ban you and delete all your posts, and because the entire protocol is designed for each person to use a single PDS you're constantly at risk of losing everything. Suppose you don't like Bluesky because of whatever their drama is, you do what the guy in the thread is saying and move to Blacksky, but then you name your git branch "master" instead of "main" and now you can get banned from that. It's risky gamble with no obvious solution. It's so absurd that the main selling point (and the only one that can still be defended) of the entire ATProto endeavor now is the "you own your data" mantra and yet they're bad at that too. Sure, you can probably get some third-party service that will backup your stuff or whatever, but the fact is that it is an afterthought and 99% of users will never touch such things. Meanwhile on Nostr the default and expected behavior is to publish your stuff to multiple relays. View quoted note →

First-class relay feeds support, very fast (in the native Android app at least) outbox model with offline database, bunker login? This is so good I'll even ignore the PWA bullshit. View quoted note →

If you don't use this you'll never know how much you're missing: View quoted note →

Some days ago I listened to this interview with Larry Sanger: https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-larry-sanger He is obviously very right in all his Wikipedia takes, but the solutions proposed are a waste of time, mostly because they will never be implemented, and it's the wrong focus to try to get the Wikipedia overlords to appease reasonableness, we should be building a decentralized encyclopedia instead. There was one really good proposal, though: he suggested that Wikipedia should allow more than one article for each topic to be created, since there may be different viewpoints about that same topic and it's better to let them speak independently than to try to reconcile them in the same article. That solution suffers from an analogous problem to this: View quoted note → Basically there is no way in practice for a single organization to decide how many articles will be created about each topic and what viewpoints are worth being represented, and then moderate the content inside each different article. A much better solution is to create an ecosystem of articles where anyone can publish, and then the tools for people to curate and point to their preferred ones, such that naturally the different viewpoints will be clustered around some articles curated by individuals with relative trust and no absolute authority. Readers would benefit enormously by being able to navigate between these different viewpoints and judge everything by themselves.

This is very true and why the Nostr approach of having multiple servers (and clients talking to many of them simultaneously), each with their own rules and moderation policy, is the only way forward. View quoted note → See also: View quoted note → Bluesky and friends are pushing for a network with a single point-of-failure with regards to moderation, and, as Masnick used to know, that cannot end well.