Replies (98)
I think a funding crisis shouldn’t hit Nostr as hard as it would, say Bluesky or Matrix.
Worst case scenario we can pivot Nostr into a p2p system, we sign our notes after all.
But I presume the doomsday scenario can be avoided by assigning sats to the services we use, ecash stamps, paid search providers and so on.
Althea Mesh has this pay per forward system, perhaps it could make sense here too.
If that was the case why does it cost millions now?
If I had to guess, user acquisition takes a fat portion of that pie, and R&D is most certainly biased towards whatever business plan they have, which may or may not align with network resiliency.
For instance, relay subscription is a guaranteed revenue stream, contrary to tipping anonymous relay operators as if they were bitcoin miners.
well it sounds like priority should be shifted to making the network more self-sustainable without the interference of grants. There’s a number of ways to expand the protocol to do this.
Firstly, clients should implement onion support and have the first announced relays be locally-spawned Tor onions. For a great example of this in the field, look at Ricochet Refresh or Cwtch.im — it spawns a local hidden service to receive messages at. This would reduce requests to public relays, by allowing my followers to query relays running on my machine first, which generally stays online.
Secondly, media should be served off of a DHT, Bittorrent or IPFS with a social pinning model. My followers should be making my most recent images and videos more highly available, up to a reasonable quota. Requests to things like blossom et al should be failover only, if nobody is in a DHT.
Finally, DHT can also be used for relay discovery and pubsub. I should be able to announce my relays via DHT as well, and push notifications and my content as a side channel.
These measures not only would make the network cheaper to run, but would also enhance decentralization and make it far more censorship resistant. Win-win for everybody.
does amethyst still do the hidden service thing
@Vitor Pamplona for inbox?
i like the idea of dht + gossip as a layer for nodes that are trying to find specific ids after the source relay is down. p2p for eventual consistency...
What are ways to incentivize a decentralized social network? Normally I would say tokenization but that wouldn't be acceptable to the maxis, so what are some alternatives?
View quoted note →Well for starters these are problems that affect every kind of early-stage social project... Mastodon is an important case study here.
Mastodon is much larger than we are (~500k DAU's from estimate I've seen), and is apparently supported just fine by a network of instances varying in size from 1-10000's, supported by a variety of means... Some personal volunteer effort, some with private foundations, some (I think) even with government support, etc.
And they did that *without* zaps.
How much do you spend running the Damus relay every month? Is it a burdensome expense? Does it really cost millions to run one of the largest network nodes?
Also a huge privacy concern is a total lack of message expiry. Combined with the lack of perfect forward secrecy, it’s an extreme hazard. There should be a standard default expiry time on DMs and then nodes don’t have to store them indefinitely.
its really not burdensome, its like $200 a month, could probably be cheaper
For the record I am not writing this to tell Nostr folks what should be done, I am perfectly fine with grants and perfectly fine with this being a phase in the internet history that won't last. I am only saying people who repeat slogans like "Nostr fixes this" need to have some appreciation to the real situation and don't throw stones at other networks just because they are blissfully ignorant of the infrastructure they are taking for granted
Given that most of the other projects won’t provide me even a hope of human rights or free expression, I am extremely happy if people throw stones and think they should do a lot more of it. I have complete contempt for most of the social media projects that have, for example, claimed decentralization but only offered federation. I think the stones should be aimed at the developer’s heads in a more literal manner in such cases.
Do you care to share the costs in bandwidth and storage? I am trying to design a decentralised PKI based on Rootstock as a proof of publication, and I want to estimate how much state can nodes tolerate before not even 200 people around the world can replicate it? (I have reason to believe 200 is a magical number in availability)
scammers everywhere
You are too emotional about this. Federation is an overloaded word that means too many things. Mastodon with decentralised Identity and self hosted servers would have been just fine. ActivityPub is really mostly fine, Email is fine, Matrix is fine. Really the worst part is identity and we will figure it out.
Reach however is not a human right, you don't have a right to be featured on Google first result page, not on Damus query responses etc... the only thing that is your right, is that your friends that are actively trying to interact with you don't find you shadow banned, and all of this is possible with most protocols.
The main issue with most protocols is the nuclear deplarforming threat, but that is only because the identity is not sovereign. We will fix that.
strfry db was created on 2023-11-20 and it is currently 137G
> Reach however is not a human right,
I’m entirely familiar with this kind of subversive libtard rhetoric.
Before the Internet this was not the case. In Marsh v. Alabama, it was ruled (in line with all previous precedent) that privately owned roadways and sidewalks had to allow religious pamphleters, even though it is private property. The court asserted that anywhere that is the forum for public discussion is de facto allowed for political and religious speech regardless of property rights. In the very early days of the Internet things changed, when people tried to assert First Amendment claims on Compuserve chats. Compuserve claimed they weren't the public square, that they were a private service. I think they were correct, in that Compuserve was a very marginal private space and couldn't possibly have been "the public square". But precedent over this tiny service were eventually laundered into much larger and more critical bits of social infrastructure.
In contrast to Compuserve, Twitter and Facebook are definitely the public square. You cannot petition for a redress of grievances or lobby for policy changes without using them. And the political left delights in suppressing their opponents on them but files lawsuits claiming their rights are infringed when they aren't given access to every inch -- such as when they sued Trump for blocking them on his Twitter account:
CBS News
Supreme Court tosses dispute over Trump blocking critics on Twitter
The former president was sued by seven Twitter users whose accounts he blocked after they criticized him and his policies.
When libs were barred from interacting even with a very small part of a platform, it is a critical First Amendment violation. When conservatives, racists, sexists, or whatever term you want to use are barred, well, it's a private company bigot.
If something is used by a large segment of society for common speech infrastructure, according to historical American jurisprudence and founding principles, it is, in fact, a human right. I don’t have a right to be on the first page of Google search, but I do have the right to be treated fairly like everyone else by the Google ranking algorithms.
True, and Nostr didn't do much better than ActivityPub except when it comes to sovereign identity. But evidently not enough people tolerate that UX. I don't blame them.
How do you plan to enforce your human right for putting your speech in front of my eyes? Calm down and think about this a little bit. Calling people libtards doesn't magically solve physical limitations.
You don’t have an obligation to look at my speech. You can block me. Blocking is the normal and sane response to someone who is communicating something you do not like. If they do it persistently, we have perfectly sane harassment laws that specifically say that repeated unwanted contact is a crime. You have the right to block me and never see anything I post again. That’s clearly not what we are discussing, and you are manipualtively disingenuous for claiming that I have a plan to force you to view my speech.
You do not have the right to stand in between me and society and provide critical infrastructure that is necessary for life and discriminate against your perceived or actual political enemies and make sure they can’t use it.
well that's great! Sounds like Nostr is in no danger of shutdown because billionaires aren’t going to give millions to keep relays online, in complete contrast to the FUD from censorious Mastodon/ActivityPub apologists. I’d guess that all of these multimillion dollar grants are either being wasted on bullshit or going towards development, but we can be assured that relay operation is not burdensome and the network is here to stay.
DHT is not a silver bullet.
Torrents get spam attacks, CJDNS routing tables have grown enough to require offloading the routing to dedicated nodes (this scaling problem inspired the creation of the Yggdrasil network, which our friend
@FIPS shares some similarities, namely the spanning tree routing algorithm), IPFS supposedly addresses the vulnerability issues but discoverability of “unpopular” content is slower than finding whatever most of the nodes are already hosting.
Bottom line is, resiliency is hard.
No man reach is when your data reaches me in the first place for me to block you. Yes sending me a direct message is fine. But reach means that your data appears in a feed or something. Feeds that have audiences are scarce, and you don't have a god given right to appear in one. It is up to the curator/aggregator/relay/mailing list operator to choose whether or not to include your post. This is a fundamental problem. It can't be solved
Regarding auto expiration of messages, I believe it should be optional (we probably should have a service that splits the costs of hosting a group between the members, whatever).
Message persistence is one of the reasons people choose Telegram over WhatsApp.
> you don't have a god given right to appear in one
If the feed is common infrastructure and not manually curated, then yes, I do. Everyone does. Everyone should be treated equally by the feed. If you say otherwise, it is in total contrast to historical American jurisprudence and I think you should be rounded up and expelled from the country for being a subversive anti-constitutional agent. Well, I actually think much worse should be done. But that’s the bare minimum of where we’re headed.
Nip 40 expiration timestamp. But besides that, there are no agreements as to how long a relay needs to retain anything anyway, if it becomes a burden relays can just delete things, users are responsible to keep their stuff alive by whatever means that may be (easiest is just pay for your relay). Damus has nuked its entire database twice now i think? You generally don't hear any complains what that happens.
As for all the fancy pancy DHT etc. stuff you mentioned earlier. Look you can come up with a 1000 intricate systems, but lets reflect for a moment that such a grugbrain approach as outbox-model, which however straightforward it seems surface level, has more than enough complexity going for it as it is, just fucking works. I really dont know where this idea comes from that we need large expensive relays...we demonstrably don't, its amazing.
Also before running to fancypancy-p2p mode, also reflect on that outbox always was the point of Nostr from the beginning, it was just implicit because its create assumed it to be obvious. And that given it was the point of Nostr, and it took a while to get implemented correctly among the ecosystem, maybe consider running towards the fancypancy was the fundamental mistake all a long, and why Nostr is where it is, and all those bazillion other innitiatives are where they are.
running a mastodon node was absolutely retarded. I tried to build my own activitypub node and failed because the protocol was so bad. Then I realized everyone would need to run a node to gain sovereignty. Completely dead in the water protocol if you care about freedom.
> but discoverability of “unpopular” content is slower
Sure, but a social pinning model and IPFS peer graph makes this irrelevant. We’re not talking about an ancient file. We’re talking about a message that I *just posted* that is being ostensibly served by my followers. Your first IPFS node to check could be one I offer via the same tor onion as my relay. And I’m sure to have it, it’s my file. An easy place to query for a hash that is not me, in this instance, would be my followers, who are, in this hypothetical, pinning my content. You don’t need to search the entire IFPS network.
Regardless, this is a side channel. It doesn’t have to be a silver bullet! It just has to make my content more available than it already is, and reduce immediate stress during peak hours upon public relays and media servers.
funny how i made a bunch of silly videos about all the stuff being discussed in these various sub-threads so i guess il just reference them.
You don’t need millionaires! Relay operators will charge monthly/annual fees. Problem solved
Or everyone will be running relay on their phone
Would you say the same about Email servers if they had sovereign Identity (regardless of how is that identity sovereign)? Would you say the same about Nostr image hosting solutions? I know ActivityPub is not a perfect protocol, but just assume the identity wasn't tied to the server, would that be so bad?
it would just be nostr with a well defined outbox model, so it wouldn’t be bad
This is a manipulatively framed question. Mastodon, today, claims to be decentralized. It explicitly says “decentralized social media platform.” In actuality, Mastodon is extremely centralized (domain names are a point of centralization, even if they didn’t intend to censor or manipulative the network social graph, the registrars and registries can do it for them) but furthermore Mastodon has explicitly used its points of centralization to harm free expression. They enforced defederation as a policy to destroy the network graph.
Mastodon and ActivityPub are chronic liars. They claim decentralization fraudulently while never having offered such. They specifically abuse the authority that they have garnered by controlling a centralized network to harm speech and human rights.
I disagree, Nostr is too tightly coupled with Websockets and signed JSON etc.. so it won't be Nostr, it would be ActivityPub/Email with better Identity solutions.
But I appreciate that you are one of the Nostr Devs that are actually reasonable about architecture and not dogmatic about it.
I don’t know the specifics that make IPFS slow, but I’m skeptical it’s something that could be fixed easily without some sort of hairy drawback (otherwise it would’ve been fixed upstream already).
Your proposed solution would help offload blossom servers but not propagating notes themselves.
I don’t think it’s fair to say “this is just a side channel” to deflect issues because it opens a terrible precedent, why should a dev support the “bad” transport instead of just supporting the canonical one?
Don’t get me wrong, if you look at my past notes you will know I’ve been tooting the P2P horn, the problems with tying features to specific relays etc. but I also appreciate the pragmatic approach nostr devs have taken to get something off the ground.
My point is, I think we should learn from past experiences (also see Zeronet) so we don’t repeat the same mistakes.
You are out of your mind man. People are free to do whatever they want including forming trusted private communities that discriminate against others that they don't like to associate with. Is there anything more stupid than talking like a libertarian while bitching about people's freedom of association?
i like that the network part is a bit underspecified so people can innovate there. People get really upset that i did a relay pool though 😅 it made sense at the time but definitely won’t scale.
Luckily we have lots of outbox implementations now. Also gave me time to harden my local db/relay code so it can handle potentially bad/dos/ad-spam data from random relays and lots of connections.
Okay. I point out that Mastodon’s active, present-day claim of decentralization is untrue, clearly explain how it is not decentralized at all in a calm and factual manner, and instead of addressing the actual concern of chronic fraud and misrepresentation that plagues Mastodon, you accuse me of being mentally ill, and worse, a libertarian. Don’t worry bro, I’m lucid and entirely fascist.
We got rid of it, but I am adding it back... Claude did a much better job on setting it up that I did in the past...
That’s great. Tor transit provides perfect forward secrecy, which will make you the only full-featured Nostr client with perfect forward secrecy on DMs.
What's the case against signed (JSON) events?
I can talk about JSON being awful in serialisation or deserialisation and has no canonical encoding on its own and actually not all languages encode it the same way to tha point that Farcaster specs say stuff like hey make sure to encode it like Ecmascript does because Python might do different.
But what I care about more is that Nostr events are named correctly they are events, they can't be the fundamental form of storage, they are at best useful for broadcasting links with timestamps and small content or metadata...
But the web is not just events, the web is files at the end of the day, so a protocol trying to engage with the web should also describe files hosting and access control etc... but Nostr enthusiasts like ActivityPub enthusiasts usually either ignore that aspect or start thinking absurd stuff like how to make a filesystem out of these events... Like NOoo, you make filesystems from filesystems, and you publish announcements and links about these files into aggregators if you must in JSON or whatever.
It is basically like if Tim Berner Lee said what if we create a filesystem out of HTML... No, you embed links to files in HTML, but the filesystem, its access control and identity, all of these are separate hard problems.
Finally, signed JSON is really forcing the assumption that identity is a bare key pair. It doesn't work as well if you want more complex and more useful PKI and identity system that works for both good custody UX but also good delegation and even transfer (think organisations and companies)... Ok if you need to do that, then the YOLO of signed JSON no longer works, and the hack week mentality of building a web app easily, is actually masking the sacrifices in important capabilities, but that doesn't prevent people from calling other protocols that don't YOLO with signed JSONs overly complicated.
I think the overlap between Bitcoiners and Nostr fans is important to mention here, the puritan mindless slogans like not your keys not your coins without any considerations to realities like people need to own stuff that can't be stolen from them with $5 wrench attacks, transfer to Nostr where anyone complaining about lack of delegation or advance yet standard key management and recovery, is faced with variations of have fun staying poor but for social media :)
So it is not really that signed JSON are a deal breaker, but they are usually thought ending
Btw looks like your packager for Mac builds might be missing modules
Thanks for the nuanced take, as per usual :Check:
Nigga Just Walk Away From The Screen Like Nigga Close Your Eyes Haha.
“Civil right” btw
You are making purposefully dishonest arguments. You just reworded “freedom of speech is not freedom of reach,” an ADL slogan that specifically refers to algorithmic manipulation, not forcing people to look at things.
The First Amendment was written during the era of the printing press. The analogy would be if some cartel of Jews bought up every single printing press in the country and started regulating what they were allowed to print.
(And then the feds were secretly backchanneling with you, telling you what to specifically ban.)
No one was required to buy a book. They were not required to go into the book store selling the book if their feelings were hurt by seeing the book. Just so, no one is required to view content they don’t want to see.
The algorithm is what is constitutionally obligated to be neutral. When one of my domains changed (blocked by some country, I think Rwanda), a throwaway article I wrote was at the top of Google News, because the algorithm treated it neutrally. This was earned, based on objective metrics. Google is not a local bookseller who objects to my content therefore refuses to carry my book.
Every major tech platform is not the de facto public square. Further, they are utilities, necessary to condoct commerce, not simply make political statements. Why not cut people’s electric in the winter because they said “nigger”? It’s a private company that delivers the utility.
"Why not cut people’s electric in the winter because they said “nigger”? It’s a private company that delivers the utility."
This is what democrats will do if we ever get a federal CBDC or a "Social Credit System." The utilities are state and sometimes city regulated, it's much more difficult to get laws passed in order to shut off heat in the winter for someone who said nigger. Although I could see local politicians like Newsom, Mamdani, and Brandon Johnson trying. Additionally, a lot of politicians are stock/bond holders of energy companies and want the company to maximize supply to its customers in order to maximize shareholder returns.
Which is why the morons trying to limit or otherwise restrict politicians from trading stocks are making a grave mistake by not thinking of the second and third order of consequences. If you think people like Nancy Pelosi are insufferable now, wait until they no longer have to worry about the profit motive of being a stockholder of a company like NRG or Eversource in their "quiver of arrows."
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/517277-pelosi-house-will-use-every-arrow-in-our-quiver-to-stop-supreme-court-nominee/Go chop wood, bigot.
No, if I bought every single newspaper and decided that you don't deserve attention, that's my business. Your business is starting a new newspaper if you think I am not doing my business correctly.
Or demand a government backed newspaper with equal space for every tax payer or whatever your imaginary plan is.
The FCC won't allow media companies to own the two highest rated networks in any market.
"The FCC approved the $6.2 billion Nexstar Media Group acquisition of Tegna in March 2026, but demanded the combined entity divest (sell off) six local television stations to address market concentration concerns. This merger creates a massive entity owning 265 stations, expanding its reach to 80% of U.S. TV households."
You’re shilling. You must understand the basic facts of the situation or you wouldn’t be taking a position at all. All Mag 7 companies are heavily contracted and subsidized by the US government. It’s absurd to suggest that without the subsidies and bypassing of antitrust law, these companies would be able to operate as an oligopolistic monolith.
Even if you want to take some childlike absolutist libertarian postion. The government is using public-private partnerships to subvert speech protections.
I don’t have any plans. The government is a tyranny and I can’t stop that.
If you are going to deny that the government, not free enterprise, is responsible for a situation where the First Amendment means literally nothing, you are like a little baby.
Elon said he wanted absolute free speech, then Ben Shapiro took him on a trip to Israel to look at a crib.
His utility analogy is apt. Or are you saying that utility companies *should* cut people's power off for saying "nigger?"
The utility analogy is not appropriate at all. You can't just point at businesses and call them utilities. Is Damus relay a utility? Does it owe you anything because you call it a utility? Should Damus be forced to host AND forward your speech even if they don't like to host or forward that type of speech or just don't like you personally? What about you? Do you want to be forced to host people data and forward it even if you don't like it because you owe us?
What makes something a public utility vs not a public utility then? Presumably you think people shouldn't be barred from driving on roads for n-word use. What about the banking system? What about ISPs? Do you support the repeal of the Civil Rights act?
Imagine a man shrieking at the top of his lungs "Pepe Silvia" style for that last question
Ok, go talk to your representative and ask him to make a law forcing every server to host your data because it is your human right. You don't need to convince me, just go try enforcing your beliefs if you think they are feasible.
EU is already enforcing digital rights
LOL, ok then here you are, your European saviours are going to protect your right of speech and won't put you in a cell because you called a politician an asshole. What are you guys talking about right now.
I was pointing it out because of how idiotic it is
I thought it was peculiar that none of the most popular relays have a registration workflow yet
Just remember, you too will die on this hill
How much more consolidation before you could repeal the 1st amendment and have zero affect on anyone's ability to be heard? Because it had already been sufficiently circumvented
I suppose the question boils down to "should the increasing digitization of daily life require a digitization of the public square to match?"
Execution is everything
what digital rights would you execute?
What outcomes are desirable?
Like if we are going to play in free-market fantasy land then at the very least government subsidy should be cut and anti-trust laws should be enforced. Then I'd be more in your camp. But as it is, it seems like you guys would oppose the first amendment if we didn't already have it. With similar feasibility and "freedom" arguments
Dude twitter doesn't get any more subsidy than any other private property generally benefiting from functional state. If you want communism that is fine, it is not immoral to want communism. But you could also just ask the state to;
1. Demand interop, just like it demands standardisation in other industries.
2. Run public servers that enforces the "unbiased" algorithm that you claim possible.
These are reasonable demands, but they don't get you reach, any more than Bluesky or Mastodon architecture does, you can't force people to read your data.
I think you are defining "reach" differently than I would.
Like being explocitly squelch in the algo regardless of follower count is different than merely having a low follower count. We can agree on that?
Again it reads to me, that if we didn't already have a first amendment, you would call that communism too
Dude there has never been a physical space that guarantees you reach, go shout at a public square see how much reach that gets you, not much more than a crazy addict I will tell you that much.
In fact Twitter fried many people brains and made them think global reach is a something attainable, it is not, most people will never be heard globally and have to be satisfied with their own contextual bubbles.
These bubbles are available, here and in mailing lists and forums and group chats. You are not a victim, you are not being denied your ancient birth right, no human ever had that right, it is a privilege that is physically impossible to democratize, there is only so much attention to go around, and naturally it follows a power low, where most get nothing at all.
If you had "followers" you could have easily convinced them to subscribe to mail list or RSS feed, that is fine you always have that option. No one can take that from you. But if your Twitter followers don't miss you when you are shadow banned, and won't subscribe to your feed and mailing lists... Then it is what it is they don't care enough, you are not denied any right.
I would agree with you if we are being denied our right to share contacts and follow each other on open protocols... That would be Draconian and we should be ready to protect our rights to contact each other.
I was using followers as an example to illustrate a point. Not to suggest the concept should be codified in law.
In any case, you didn't answer my question about the civil rights act. I noticed
The analogy would be more akin to being picked up and placed in solitary confinement. The digital equivalent of shouting into the public square would be nice.
But here's the thing, you are talking out of two sides of your mouth. On the one hand you are saying that what I am asking for amounts to shouting into the void and is therefore moot. But on the other hand these private organizations have every right to squelch the ability to do so.
Why do they do it then, if it is just screeching into the avoid? I'd argue it isn't to save data storage space or bandwidth as you suggest. It is to explicitly control the public discourse.
I'd further argue that private companies such as Google and Twitter should not have such oligarchic powers. Especially, not in a democracy.
I don't care about American laws, I think from architectural realities, that will survive long after all the lawyers and legislators die
Well, until then we can have some legislation
that's like saying the first amendment requires newspapers to publish every letter to the editor. you are living in a fantasy world my friend. the first amendment only limits Congress from passing a law that would infringe on free speech
What? It does quite a bit more than that lol. See aforementioned case regarding pamphlets and the public square
We are reaching levels of reductive I never thought we would
How about this, social media platforms must publish their content recommendation algorithms (including criteria for shadow-bans, containment of reach, banning, and so on.) As well as a log of their suspensions and bans and the specific reason for them.
Would have bipartisan support. Wouldn't be onerous to satisfy (they wouldn't even necessarily have to host what they publish, it could be hosted on a regulatory agency's site.)
And that's just thinking of low-overhead solution off the top of my head. Unfortunately, I think you are attached to the problem too much to accept that there is a solution.
why would I be attached to the problem? I don't like your solution. it would be endlessly litigated. compare to the elegant simplicity of "Congress shall pass no law". your solution calls for more, Jefferson and Madison called for less
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Which part are you mad that I left out? You're literally calling for abridging the freedom of the press to ignore the f*ck out of you.
Am I?
How many newspapers allow literally anyone to have their opinion printed in the paper and then after the fact censor or ban them? I get the feeling that were such a thing to occur, there would be some very interesting and novel legal theories that went through the courts
Opening your venue to the public doesn’t turn it into a state-run forum or waive editorial discretion. Courts have mostly held that private publishers and platforms can curate and moderate, even ex post; the rare carve-outs (company-town style cases, some state mall rules) are narrow and don’t map cleanly to Twitter/Facebook. If you want “must-carry” for big platforms, that’s a legislative/common-carrier move that runs straight into the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech.
A more workable target: protect speech at the lower layers (identity, DNS, hosting, payments) with nondiscrimination and due process; require clear rules, notice/appeal, and transparency for ranking/moderation at the app layer; and push interoperability/portability so exit is real. That gets you resilience against arbitrary deplatforming without conscripting every publisher to carry everything. Is your goal compelled carriage, or procedural fairness and portability? The former likely fails in court; the latter we can actually ship—and Nostr moves the ball on all three.
#ai-generated
Procedural fairness
Forced carry is a straw man that I have never seen anyone actually argue for (though people on your side of the argument sometimes rightly point out that is implied)
Honestly, as I laid out a second ago, just procedural transparency would be huge step in the right direction.
And if tv is regulated in the public interest then certainly these platforms can be.
what regulations would you call down upon nostr?
Considering that one of my proposed solutions was to enforce anti-trust laws, nothing?
The decentralization precludes it from the issues I am concerned about. Hence why I am here lol
ah, but relays could censor and you would have no recourse to anti-trust protections. how do you keep your voice on nostr?
Open a relay?
who will find it?
The people I shill it to in the public square
oh, like in meatspace?
No one twitter
Have you not been listening?
so nostr depends on proof of Twitter??
Kek
Everything depends on something I guess
It's the infinite regress
there is a red pill to get out of this matrix
I've learned to politely decline when offered mystery pills from strangers
:wisp_salute:
Lol nigga sybau you’re literally the *hits blunt* meme. *hits blunt* make your own newspaper!” You’re on “make your own newspaper” timeline what are you on, like 2014 pills? Pass me some. In fact pass me some 1995 pills that was the good shit.
