The problem of conventional platforms such as facebook is actually not that it's centralized, at least not the full picture.
The problem before centralization vs decentralization is either data is signed.
A centralized platform does not require signed data.
But, what if all data are signed and still server oriented?
Then, when the server is down, the client can migrate its data to a new server.
Trust is not evil as long as its verifiable at the same time.
Interesting.
But signed plus movable data don't actually equal decentralized? Relays are the natural outcome.
If I'm not wrong, some time ago nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 talked about this.
If you can migrate that means people won't know where you are, so they can't expect your stuff to be in the same server as everybody else, then they have to connect to multiple serves to fetch your stuff and now we are in the Nostr territory.
Yes.
Just before this note I was talking with Blowater via DM about private groups, so my comment was influenced by that thought. In this case maybe we can expect to be on the same server, and move on if something goes wrong.
Just (re)read your updated NIP-29, it's what I was thinking about. In fact I was also speculating if/how private groups controlled by a relay can be forked.
Everybody will have to agree together to move on if something goes wrong? You mean like everybody on Twitter have agreed to move on to Gab when every single person in the planet realized that banning Alex Jones was the sign of something going wrong?
I got what you say, on the global(s) space(s) it's obvious, Nostr solves this.
But in private groups we are bound to the group owner/admin, so it is enough for him to decide. Others follow or fork, like your NIP-29 seems to suggest, right?
What if they shadowban you?
By shadowban, if we mean that a platform stops to recommend your content in other people’s feeds, then yes, a decentralized network solves this particular problem. Here we are talking about global public discussions.
The concept of ownership matters. Nobody owns the global and it’s public space. Nobody is the creator of the universe.
However, group chats are public but not global. Groups have clear ownerships.
Constraining a group chat in a finite set of servers is a desired property.
A member could be banned by both the physical server owner or the logical group owner.
In case the group owner is banned by the server, this owner can migrate all the data to another server and invite all members back.
What I mean is: you have a million followers and someday you say something forbidden and now none of your own followers see what you're saying. Now what? You will migrate alone to some other server and lose all your million followers?
