I think the underlying assumption I'd challenge is why was "reach" the default metric that we're using for success? Should increased 'reach' be our end goal with nostr? Yes, you might only be able to reach 100 people on nostr (this would actually be a vast improvement for many on LSM, but anyway), but the difference we should strive for is that those 100 connections should be more meaningful. The concept of people having followers should also be examined. I don't think the internet was supposed to be this way and I think there are much more beneficial ways of organizing communication in cyber. This is what nostr devs and users should be thinking about it (they are already, just good to reiterate)

Replies (2)

That's true, the concept of 'following' is about to change on Nostr. It's still a relic from the LSM days, and a lot of Nostr developers have a hard time letting it go. For me, it's already the case that I follow tons of people without formally following them, through the Tribes feature. And I 'follow' a bunch of people now not because their posts interest me, but because of what they sell on the NIP-99 marketplace (I'll decouple that eventually inshallah) and so their offers get sprinkled into my timeline.
Danish's avatar
Danish 1 week ago
This problem should be agbostic. Nostr should be agnostic to what reach means and numbers being as metric or not. People should eventually find their own tribes, may be tribe which values that 100 connections and not the counts and all, but many may still evaluate their success as how much audience they are getting and what's the incentive to be on social media. So nostr should be social anarchy where anyone can be anything without forcing it on someone else. problems should not be attached to nostr, but rather in itself. Only problem objectively nostr solves is decentralization and freedom from technofeudalists, other than that all should be discussion of subjective interests.