We're all pre-disposed to believe "censorship-resistance" is a killer selling point for anything, but for a social network it is NOT.
99% lurk and can't be censored by definition.
Maybe 1% of poasters get censored.
So by pitching nostr as "censorship-resistant" you are striking a cord with 1 in 10,000.
> 99% lurk and can't be censored by definition.
and *their speech* can't be
Unless you're in Turkey now where X censors every opposition politician and most independent journalists.
Yea that's horrible. And hopefully someday nostr can help address situations like that. But if you lead with facts like this when trying to persuade people to adopt, you might get a few opposition politicians and independent journalists and not many more ...
... and their followers. You dismiss lurkers but they follow people with intention. Can't discount them.
The lurkers get to view content that may be otherwise censored. But I also like nostr for its interoperability between apps/clients and its native bitcoin integration.
True -- but more care about Mr Beast videos more!
I love the interoperability and native bitcoin as well (censorship resistance too). Just think censorship isn't a great pitch.
Nostr is more than just censorship resistant.
* open protocol
* simple
* censorship resistant
* transparent about algorithms
I dread using X when I get zero engagement as I can never know if I'm being throttled or not. Am I talking to a wall or to my followers? Makes a difference one might think. On nostr I know my message is out there on equal footing.
I think your point is his point.
It rises when censorship rises.
There was massive full-spectrum censorship for all of 2024 and nostr usage was dead flat. This is false.
That and Snowden gave Nostr a try and then did the Homer Simpson walking backwards into the bushes thing. SNOWDEN.
Kinda like when you spend a lot of money at the pet store on a cat bed and then your cat is like, "nah, not for me".
The 'lurkers' (an unnecessarily biased name for readers) get pretty upset when someone they read and follow gets censored or removed.
Most ppl, contrary to mainstream projections, value hearing from a range of voices, including those that go against establishment narratives.
In my experience they complain and a few leave in protest for a while and come back later. This hasn't led to people changing platforms much in my lifetime ...
How then do you explain the massive audience numbers who followed Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens to their new platforms after they were censored and removed from their old ones, and in the case of Candace, an older platform that is rapidly cratering after their hypocrisy about free speech has now been exposed?
Granted, this is more independent media than social media, but the two commingle and are far from separate domains.
In the case of Tucker, do you think X is more censorship-resistant than Fox News? If so, why?
(Not familiar with Candace Owens)
Tucker streams his show from multiple platforms (not just X), including from his own website. But my point wasn't that X is necessarily more censorship resistant than Fox News; it's that ppl will, in large numbers, follow a censored voice to other places where they can continue to listen / watch / read them.
Another example is Joe Rogan who, while he personally hasn't been censored, has great popularity partly because he often invites on guests who have been.
Yet another example is Glenn Greenwald, who was censored by the media organisation he helped to found. Again, his audience followed him in large numbers to his new platform (Rumble).
Nostr is not a network. Nostr is a protocol.
It's more like 1 in 100,000, because for every 10 of the 1 in 10,000 who were censored, 9 of them will see no point in going somewhere where their preferred audience is not and will instead try to smash or wiggle their way back in where they were.
I agree with you some on this but I think the value is knowing that someone you follow can’t disappear overnight.
