Avatar
Crypt O' Graphics
996f7a7c67ed9f69302923b6642623a9650b99ca9301a433151d3a94c63878da
eyJpdiI6IlZJaHorK3Q2OWNEMWpvc2pobkFRN3c9PSIsCiJ2IjoxLAoiaXRlciI6MTAwMCwKImtzIjoyNTYsCiJ0cyI6NjQsCiJtb2RlIjoiY2NtIiwKImFkYXRhIjoiIiwKImNpcGhlciI6ImFlcyIsCiJzYWx0

Not on Nostr they won't be 🤣

European here. I still have twitter but trying to do whatever I can to show people what alternatives are out there. If the uk regime keep pushing then I think the momentum towards nostr could grow.

Given the UK's crackdown on free speech as well as the little pompous European transvestite, Nostr’s role in safeguarding uncensored communication is more critical than ever. As Nostr scales, it’s essential to maintain its decentralized nature by preventing the centralization of relays or clients and ensuring resilience against state interference.

Incorporating IP address obfuscation could become vital to protect users from tracking and enhance privacy, especially in repressive environments. Additionally, Nostr could extend its utility to decentralized machine-to-machine identity in IoT and IIoT, where its lightweight and secure structure is ideal for managing device communications without centralized control. This would ensure secure, private, and uncensorable interactions across networks.

Replying to Avatar gladstein

Here's my profile for Reason on Nostr and why it could very well change the world

Pasting a few paragraphs here, you can find the rest at the link

Feel free to spread far and wide 😉

*************

Can Nostr Make Twitter's Dreams Come True?

Twitter's founder says Nostr is “100 percent what we wanted”—an open, ownerless network

Alex Gladstein | 8.13.2024

Virtually everyone agrees that social media is broken. On Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok, people fear out-of-control algorithms, fake news, state actor censorship, and propaganda. Google and Meta collect vast troves of personal information on their users and receive hundreds of thousands of requests every year from governments around the world to access that data. YouTube has become arguably "the most powerful media platform in the history of humanity," yet its algorithm is an ever-changing black box to the creators that populate the platform with videos. During the pandemic, federal officials were in contact with every major social media platform, coercing them to remove content.

The problem is centralized control. We can't trust companies to run our primary communications infrastructure. Government regulation only makes matters worse because it creates new legal barriers to entering the industry, which protects incumbent players and stifles innovation.

What if there were an alternative, not owned by Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or the Chinese Communist Party? What if there were a way to control your own data to prevent companies from harvesting and monetizing it? What if you had granular control over what you see in your feed, with the freedom to choose your own algorithms? What if you owned your identity, which could be accessed seamlessly across different clients? That way, if you disapprove of the changes that Elon Musk brought to X, instead of closing your account you could take your handle and followers elsewhere.

That alternative exists. It's called "Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays"—or Nostr.

The Decentralized Solution

Invented by a pseudonymous programmer and overwhelmingly funded by grants from non-profit foundations, this decentralized, free, and open-source protocol has been quietly evolving for the past three years. Like bitcoin, Nostr is a community-run digital network highly resistant to censorship and corruption. It has 40,000 weekly active users and a growing ecosystem of clients and applications ranging from social media to long-form publishing to payments.

Nostr is only necessary because our existing internet is so broken.

Fifteen years ago, social media seemed destined to decentralize the world and give power back to the people. In 2009, we watched as Arab Spring activists used Twitter and Facebook to organize, coordinate, and help topple several long-standing dictatorships. The promise was that these new social platforms, designed by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, could help liberate the masses.

It was intoxicating—but turned out to be a mirage. The Arab revolutions stalled out when brutal military regimes cracked down. These platforms became tools for spying and censoring their users. X and Facebook have helped journalists and human rights activists reach bigger audiences, but they haven't fulfilled their revolutionary promise.

Jack Dorsey's Shift from Bluesky to Nostr

This was a major theme at the 2024 Oslo Freedom Forum, which is put on annually by the Human Rights Foundation, where I serve as chief strategy officer. At this conference for democracy and human rights, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey told the audience that the problem was, actually, guys like him: The very fact that Twitter, now X, has a CEO makes it a single point of failure. Governments routinely pressured Dorsey to censor content; once the company's offices in India were raided. Dorsey says that under the new Musk regime X complies with whatever governments want.

The X network is proprietary. Known as a "silo," this construct traps a user's identity, followers, and data. X also has the power to evict anyone from the platform and delete what they've written. Several years ago, when he was still running the company, Dorsey became convinced that Twitter should become an application instead, where users could post content to an open, ownerless network. This would make it similar to how bitcoin works, where you use an application called a wallet to interact with the network, but the network itself is neutral and open.

Building a non-proprietary architecture was Dorsey's original vision for Twitter, but over time the need to maximize revenue to build a business and serve shareholders undermined that goal.

Nevertheless, in 2021, Dorsey encouraged the creation of Bluesky—an initiative bootstrapped in-house to create that open neutral base layer. But after Musk bought the company, the managers of Bluesky were afraid they would run out of money and started raising funds from venture capitalists, which undermined the vision of building an open platform. Dorsey grew disenchanted and left the Bluesky board.

At the conference in Oslo, Dorsey explained what happened next:

I asked a question: What open source initiatives should I be funding that would be helpful to the public internet? And people kept tweeting at me that I should be looking at Nostr. I found the GitHub that described it and it was 100 percent what we wanted from Bluesky, but it wasn't developed from a company. It was completely independent. Its paper diagnosed every single problem we saw and had. But did it in a grassroots and dead simple way, that felt like the early Twitter where any developer could get on and really feel it.

Escaping the 'Golden Prisons'

Nostr was created in 2020 by the pseudonymous Brazilian programmer fiatjaf, who describes it as "the simplest open protocol that is able to create a censorship-resistant global 'social' network once and for all."

Though nobody is in charge, Nostr works as promised and is thriving. "It is the solution we've all been looking for," says Miljan Braticevic, founder of Primal, one of the two dozen plus clients now available for the Nostr protocol. "Nostr is not a Twitter competitor or a Mastodon competitor. This is the biggest misconception at the moment. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Nostr is nothing less than the foundation for the new internet. Meaning almost every conceivable app we have today will be built on Nostr."

Braticevic's prediction is echoed by at least a dozen other prominent developers. Martti Malmi, the first coder to work on bitcoin alongside Satoshi Nakamoto, is now a Nostr developer. In a recent talk, he said he had started to work on similar ideas around decentralized identity in 2019, only to come close to giving up. But then he found fiatjaf's invention, which he called a "godsend."

"Bitcoin is freedom of money, and Nostr is freedom of everything else," Malmi said. "I was there" in the earliest days of bitcoin, "and Nostr is even more intense."

For something that could be world-changing, Nostr is quite simple. To join, you sign up with a mobile or desktop client, which helps you to create a public and private key pair. The public key (or "npub") is used as your identifier, and you share it with clients and other users so that people can find your posts or pay you for your content. The private key ("nsec") is hidden by the user, stored safely (just like a bitcoin seed phrase), and is your way to log in to different services. Unlike platforms like X or Facebook, no other information is required to set up and use Nostr.

This gives users a powerful range of sovereignty. You can use a client, for example, that has strong hate speech controls. Or you can choose one that doesn't have any at all. You can use a client with aggressive algorithms, just like the ones X uses today. Or you can use one without any algorithm at all. Today, when you log in to an app like Primal, you can sort your feed by what's the latest, by what's most popular, by what's most zapped, or by customized keywords. It's up to you.

Last month, the macroeconomist Lyn Alden, author of one of the best books on bitcoin, published a long essay about Nostr's potential:

[Nostr] is a simple set of foundational building blocks that, if widely adopted, could gradually reshape "the Web" as we know it. Instead of a separate set of siloed social ecosystems, we could gravitate toward a more interoperable set of ecosystems, with more of the power dispersed to the content creators and to the audience, and away from the middlemen corporations.

The Nostr network is constructed like a spider web that can morph and regenerate, making it almost impossible to censor. When you set up a client on Nostr (perhaps, Primal or Damus on iOS; Amethyst on Android; or Coracle on the web), you choose from a variety of relays to connect to. This architecture ensures no single point of failure: If you are connected to seven or eight relays, and half of them choose to censor posts, your feed remains censorship-free, as your app will display the net sum of everything broadcast from each relay. If the Chinese government decides to attack your relays—as it did in 2023 when Damus launched on the Hong Kong and mainland app store—then more can be spun up. "The enemy," said Damus creator Will Casarin, "is too numerous."

Prominent bitcoin developer and educator Gigi—who switched to Nostr and deleted his X account—says that what helped it become so resilient is that it has zero exit cost. If the Chinese Communist Party bans YouTube, its domestic users lose everything. There's no way to get back their profiles and followers. The same is true if a user voluntarily closes an account.

Gigi calls these corporate silos "golden prisons" with no escape. Nostr's spider-like architecture makes escaping easy. If one client goes down, or you fail to connect to one relay, you just find another client or connect to another relay. You keep your posts, photos, preferences, contacts, and even algorithms of choice. If you use X, you are an X creator. But if you use Primal, you aren't a Primal creator, you are a Nostr creator.

https://reason.com/2024/08/13/can-nostr-make-twitters-dreams-come-true/

Nostr isn’t just another alternative to big social media it’s a necessary response to a growing crisis. While platforms like Facebook have become 'golden prisons,' trapping us in their ecosystems and controlling what we see, say, and share, Nostr offers an escape + a way to reclaim our digital freedom.

The recent clampdown on free speech in the UK is a reminder of how fragile our rights can be. Governments and corporations are tightening their grip, pushing the boundaries of censorship, and stifling dissent behind te mask of regulation and 'public safety.' This isn’t just happening in the UKit’s a global trend, and it’s only getting worse. If you’re serious about protecting your voice in an increasingly authoritarian digital landscape, it’s time for nostr. Because in the end, it’s not just about escaping the regime it’s about ensuring that our right to speak freely survives, no matter who’s trying to clamp down on it."

Gonna experiment with posting this here because the interface for inserting screenshots is better than on X, and I think this might be a more receptive audience anyway.

Now that Krugman has invoked the name of F.A. Hayek to defend Kamala Harris' policies, I must effortpost.

Unfortunately, it seems to me that this is once again a case of a progressive quote-mining Hayek to make a point he almost certainly wouldn't have agreed with.

First, let's look at the paragraph that follows. Krugman says Harris is not a full-on communist (true). She just wants to expand welfare, not fundamentally change the role of govt. Harris did support single-payer health care but now doesn't. But even if she did, says Krugman, it's not that radical or dangerous ("un-American")!

Hayek would disagree.

Hayek on "social insurance" from The Constitution of Liberty, more detailed than the The Road to Serfdom quote Krugman links: Progressives rarely mention the part in red, where he says that while the aim of govt providing a safety net is philosophically defensible, the actual methods are the problem, and as we'll see, a likely inescapable one in Hayek's telling.

He continues on to say that opposition to govt welfare is entirely defensible, just not purely on human freedom grounds. To understand this, you have to grok that Hayek defined freedom as the absence of coercion and placed a high value on prohibiting government monopolies.

He does not accept the "taxation is theft" maxim, which is why many libertarians dislike him. What he opposes is government action that prevents people from trying new experiments and competing with the state or state-connected actors to provide "essential" services.

Image

What Hayek is saying about "social insurance" is that in theoretical terms a state-supported welfare program could achieve its ends without threatening freedom.

The more sound reason to oppose it, he argues, is that the state apparatus that administers welfare in the modern world inevitably becomes a coercive and monopolistic one. There are strings attached to that money, always: Strings that serve the plans of the bureaucrats, not the individuals receiving the money.

It's fantasy ("illusion") to imagine a government machine powerful enough to administer welfare at nation-state scale while being kept in check against liberty violations. "Democratic control" ain't gonna cut it.

History shows the administrative state certainly never checks itself. This is why the recent Chevron reversal was so crucial. It allows courts, rather than "democracy," to exert more direct constitutional restraint on these agencies, likely to be more effective than Congress "doing something" (LOL).

THE GREATEST DANGER TO LIBERTY TODAY, writes Hayek, comes from the expert class running the bureaucracy for the "public good."

It is INEVITABLE, he says, that such an apparatus will become self-willed, uncontrollable and hegemonic.

Agree or disagree with Hayek's analysis, but does this sound like a guy who endorses anything close to resembling our modern welfare state? Or does it sound like a nuanced thinker conceding that the state could theoretically subsidize welfare in some non liberty-threatening way that he never quite specifies?

Hayek would almost certainly recognize massive problems with the way our current top-down welfare system distorts the market, coercively suppresses competition, and immiserates people. And to invoke him anywhere proximal to single-payer health care is a joke.

I get the criticism from libertarians that Hayek could've been more clear to avoid mischaracterization, or should've been more "hardcore" about opposing all taxation. I'm not arguing that he's that kind of libertarian. And that's OK.

But it's hard for me to see the way Krugman is quoting him here as anything other than a disingenuous way to normalize Harris' proposed expansion of social engineering and an intrusive welfare state.

Krugman invoking Hayek is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Hayek was clear about the dangers of a bureaucratic welfare state—no amount of quote-mining is going to make him a cheerleader for central planning.

Central banks are just the cheat codes for a system that’s rigged from the start. Artificially low rates are like fast food—cheap, easy, and leaves you worse off in the long run.

Replying to Avatar Guy Swann

Yo nostr:npub1ujm8l8mupgwvu8pye2ged78pg3huectlmm6at66x5wffgvl2fkgsygt8l4 you gonna have to stop posting that turismo shit or I’m gonna have to mute. I get maybe you’re trying to call attention to it, but I can’t be havin that in my feed while I’m sitting with my kid and wife and have no way to blur or hide it. Don’t want to block for WoT reasons but might have to anyway.

Oh fucking damn my curiosity!!