Avatar
Chris Liss
6ad3e2a34818b153c81f48c58f44e5199e7b4fc8dbe37810a000dce3c90b7740
posting without conscience things in which most people are not interested | www.chrisliss.com

You are right about this. But the solution IMO isn’t everyone going into hiding, but standing up and affirming the truth so that the trolls and haters realize they are outnumbered and rational people aren’t buying the narrative. That’s actually happened to some extent even on Twitter now where no one says shit when I point out the vaccine killed thousands of people. Before they were calling me an anti vaxxer just for being against mandates.

Nice to see this post provoke so many responses — obviously it hit a nerve. But almost all of them were already addressed in the post itself.

1. No one should be doxxed. This is an attempt to persuade people to post voluntarily under their real-life identities because it’s more based and will lead to an environment with less censorship.

2. This isn’t an argument *against* privacy. Privacy is essential. It’s an argument against the expectation of privacy *when posting in the public square.* Your finances, your personal communications should obviously be private.

Here’s the post — pretty sure these two points were clear:

https://chrisliss.substack.com/p/anonymity

That’s great, but think about how many more people would come to a true free speech protocol if they knew you were here.

without skin in the game you have people who stand for nothing, Other social media platforms could deplatform you. Now that’s no longer possible.

It’s a free newsletter — should be able to read the whole thing. And again, I don’t think anyone should be forced, but if you want to grow NOSTR, and want there to be an ethos of free speech, people are gonna need to make that choice IMO.

No, skin in the game is what enforces genuineness over the long haul. Because there’s a cost for being full of shit.

And you don’t judge the truth of something based on credentials. You judge the motives/ of someone who works for Pfizer based on the fact that you know they must say and believe what they’re saying otherwise they couldn’t work there.

Replying to Avatar mark tyler

Some great comments here. Allow me to blather a bit.

"By only voicing your dissent anonymously you are reinforcing the frame of the censor"

- by discouraging anonymity you reinforce the power of the censor, not just directly, but also indirectly by causing people to mindlessly self-censor and never realize they might actually believe the forbidden stance if they entertained it.

"So what to make of the fact that the world's first decentralized, peer-to-peer content protocol is filled with anonymous handles? The optimistic view is it's just a remnant of centralized media where someone really could throttle your reach or de-platform you for wrong-think, and anonymity were more necessary."

- Bitcoin is pseudonymous. Nostr is less so. I think humans have a flaw, and that is that we have a hard time loving people in the real world that we know think differently than us. Sometimes we kill them. Sometimes we simply don't hire them. That's why we have laws to protect freedom of speech. Laws that don't prevent people from being hired by a private company because of wrong think. A lawsuit is so much more messy than just being a nym and not having to deal with it at all. Anonymity tempers those weakness.

"creativity-killing self-censorship resulting therefrom"

- yeah once the net effect on creativity is 50/50 maybe we start discouraging nym use. For now, it doesn't even close. Anecdotally, a while ago I said something to a friend that could easily have gotten me cancelled in the recent environment. For 24 hours I stressed over whether he would go to the presses. I watch as my mind convinced myself I didn't mean it. No wait, i did! I couldn't have.. In the end I had no idea whether the gears of social pressure and possible exile had changed my mind, or whether I had actually discovered my error.

What data could we use to inform whether we should be discouraging or encouraging nym use?

1. I disagree — the censor has no power because NOSTR exists. No one can cause you to self-censor once you realize your expression can’t be stopped. Only you are self-censoring.

2. Bitcoin is money so pseudonymity is a reasonable expectation. When I buy something I’m not intending to announce it to the world. Social media is the opposite — I am precisely announcing it to the world. And stop working for people who would fire you for dissent!

3. No one is saying your private communication with a friend should be public. I’m taling about things you are posting in the public square.

Exactly. Your point is that without anonymity you wouldn’t speak your mind. And that’s a problem that you can’t only blame on the State.

This is good for some things (like all current ones) but I think people should actually be *more* angry about the infringements to their liberties the last few years in the west. I mean they created the virus, the lied about its origins, they banned early treatment, they mandated medicine, they locked you in your house, etc.

People are way too ready to move not only without justice, but without even removing many of the malefactors from power.

Just because you’re not being abused right this instant, doesn’t mean everything is okay.

So I hear you and agree — starve the people fomenting outrage over the current thing, but the flip side is to demand an accounting from those who got rich off it too.

Bsaically, starve them but don’t forget to prosecute those fuckers when they’re good and starved.

Yeah, you have *some* skin in the game, especially if you build up a following. But it’s not as powerful IMO as someone who is saying, “Yeah, that’s me IRL saying and believing these things, and standing up for my right to do so, even if other people are going to be mad about it.”

There are deep philosophical questions around the concept of identity, but in this case everyone knows what we’re talking about.

I was attacked pretty hard in my industry and job for my views during covid. But I also had a lot of people tell me what I posted was helpful to them. Not just the ideas which were out there, but someone credible they knew standing behind them and taking heat for them.

So I agree ideas are the most important things, but ideas with someone willing to stand up for them are more likely to propagate.

And if you really care about growing NOSTR, I think more people will need to ID themselves as being there.

I think anonymity should be permissible but discouraged. So no one is advocating for doxxing you and getting you in trouble at your day job.

But do you not see the problem here? Maybe there are 10 other people who work where you do who don’t dare speak put, and the censors believe all the compliant employees are in lockstep with their permitted world views. How would they even know anyone is dissenting? How would someone else at your work know to reach out to you?

But even beyond that, you undermine the views you hold by being unwilling to stand by them. And should you simply stating your opinion that Israel is committing genocide get fired, perhaps long-term it would be for the best.

And as I said, I don’t think anyone should be doxxed, but I think putting your name to your views and letting the chips fall should be encouraged.

I think it’s only that way because we’ve accepted censorship. We’ve bought into the premise that our views are too radical, too impermissible to have attached to our real identities.