Nostr Web Client

Replying to JimD

That's not the appropriate framing for any discussion about development of an open and free protocol suite (such as NOSTR).

The appropriate framing is that existing and prospective users want services and content AND ARE WILLING TO PAY FOR IT.

The features should be driven by user demand and desires — not be the those of "content providers."

The major problems with commercial social media platforms emerge from the choice to cater to "providers" (most advertisers and marketers — pushing "content" on the one hand, and ingesting user data for monetization on the other).

It ultimately degenerates into the "enshittification" that's described by the Doctorow doctrine:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/21/potemkin-ai/

Sikto 2y ago

You misunderstand my point. This thread has more detailed responses and discussion. Content providers will not determine how nostr is structured but there need to be avenues for them to use, which don’t affect the end users that don’t wish to use those avenues, if nostr is to grow. It’s about choice for the users and the people who create content. Maybe you want to stream and have sats sent, maybe you want to put it behind a zap wall. Maybe you are a user who doesn’t like zap walls so you only view streams that are open and choose to zap the creator during the stream.

Reply to this note

Discussion