> I think follows are commie, designed to reduce our freedom, create rampant shadow-banning, force us to make all of our contacts public and easily searchable, and steer us all to be drooling influencer groupies.

>

> Everything I've seen happen, on Nostr, since I got here, just solidifies that opinion for me. There has not been any counter-evidence. The whole situation has just steadily degraded.

I'm not sure you understand the main value most people get out of social media. For most, the purpose *is* to be a "drooling influencer groupie". I would bet nostr:nprofile1qqsgydql3q4ka27d9wnlrmus4tvkrnc8ftc4h8h5fgyln54gl0a7dgspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg4waehxw309aex2mrp0yhx6mmnw3ezuur4vgkhjsen and nostr:nprofile1qqs8d3c64cayj8canmky0jap0c3fekjpzwsthdhx4cthd4my8c5u47spzfmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ucpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq36amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3dwp6kytnhv4kxcmmjv3jhytnwv46q6ekpnp have made the same observation: Twitter probably started out slow, with a small contingent of tech-junkies who share a common ideology and high intelligence.

Once it gained networks momentum it gained attention of more widely recognized names, who invested in the platform by sharing their high-signal opinion. Once their "groupies" learned they were on Twitter, they joined primarily to be able to participate in the conversation. This was the original intent, back in the early 90's, why USA Today put journalists' email addresses at the end of their articles; so their readers would be able to shout back, or boot-lick depending on the context.

It was when Twitter became a scientific forum, and a political forum, and a journalist publishing medium, that it exploded with success.

I wouldn't poo-poo the underlying nature of social media, or try to pin it on the common ability to publish who you want in your feed.