8f
nobody
8f79fe359293552d6cac527b93ed28e2f7f9ea2ad9781d25cf92d36fecb68088
account deleted
Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I rarely lose my temper, but whenever I do a couple times per year, my writing gets 10x as much reach and likes and shares, and gets basically immortalized. But I'm rarely happy about it when it does.

I still think about this a lot in terms of how I choose to use social media- with reach comes responsibility.

It's both a bad thing and a good thing. On one hand, it's not great that posts based on a combination of emotion and reason get *way* better reach than ones based on more pure reason alone. For "clicks" the best thing I could do for a given post is lose my temper and go all-out on something.

On the other hand, the rare cases where I lose my temper are based on serious built-up frustrations over months. I'm frustrated about something, keep holding it back, and then something becomes intolerable. My socially-compliant self-censorship all unravels at once, not perfectly, but with a clear aspect of *deep* honesty. And people see that honesty because it reflects their own. So it spreads.

So, most of the time, I write carefully, and I know my audience comes from multiple different backgrounds, literally from Indonesian farmers to Wall Street institutional billionaires, and I try to politely move the Overton window from within the Overton window. But a couple times per year, I lose my temper and post my emotional thoughts, which in some ways are more honest, but are also not exactly my ideal self-actualized self.

I end up being grateful for both my constant attempt at control and my rare tempers, because somewhere in the middle is my truth. That blend between controlled reason and built-up emotion is really hard to manage in an era of digital media and semi-immortalized content.

Anyway, I'll post this random stuff on Nostr, not Twitter. You guys and girls get the real thoughts because you're here.

Don’t worry about clicks and responsibility.

Keep writing as you were doing it for yourself.

“With reach comes responsibility” is a thesis you’d have a bad time demonstrating without postulating some degree of ineptitude in your readers.

Eheheh!

Essere immortali ha i suoi bei vantaggi. Se poi sei anche divino, i tuoi progetti diventano destino!

Una mossa poco lungimirante.

Ha prodotto risultati opposti a quelli sperati 😉

Scarcity of virgins or surfeit of sacrificial altars?

Well said!

From what I see and understand, “moderation” request comes from outside the corporations that build the platforms.

The real cost is paid by those external organisations, mostly with citizen’s money.

The power of nostr lies in its same nature. It’s a protocol. A set of rules developers can’t change on their own.

The weakness of nostr-based applications is the vulnerability of relays and a heavily controlled network infrastructure.

I really want to hope this is the dawn of a new model of communication, but I’m sure there will be fights to be fought.

True!

Still I don’t like much the idea of a scavenger Nostr.

Fate quello che volete, ma sembra che il fumo crei dipendenza.

Est modus in rebus.

Il mio dubbio, e timore, per il futuro di nostr era la possibilità che prendessero piede relay tematici a pagamento.

Da qualche giorno però leggo note riguardo abbonamenti e contenuti visibili a pagamento.

La questione è semplice, ma essenziale.

Il protocollo deve garantire che le note siano sempre accessibili liberamente, o certe note possono essere disponibili solo se soddisfatte determinate condizioni?

Nel primo caso avremmo un flusso libero e incontrollato di informazioni, che, in completa autonomia, potremmo moderare e parzialmente gestire.

Nel secondo caso alcune informazioni, i cosiddetti contenuti, diverrebbero accessibili a quella parte di utenti disposta a soddisfare le condizioni di altri utenti. Certamente sarei libero di rigettare tali condizioni, ma resterebbe il fatto che, per motivi sostanzialmente economici, alcune informazioni sarebbero oscurate.

Riassumendo: dall’apprezzamento per il contributo di un utente, ad esigere tale apprezzamento come condizione.

In tutta onestà, preferisco il primo caso. Più semplice, più efficace e, a mia modesta opinione, più in linea con lo spirito che ha guidato la nascita di nostr.

Monetizzare i contenuti è sempre possibile utilizzando mezzi collegati a nostr, ma distinti dal lato social del protocollo.

Mi spiacerebbe vedere un’altra buona idea stravolta dalla solita “religione” del mercato.

«est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines, quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum.»