I think using emergent descriptions within domains of applicability is absolutely necessary, yes. Nobody is measuring the individual states of subatomic particles and applying the Schrödinger equation. However, that doesn't mean that such a thing is an inaccurate description of nature.

So gross.

I don't agree is purely a semantic discussion. Sometimes higher-order reasoning (which important to the domain we inhabit) leads us astray and leaves us with a false impression of what's really going on in complex, emergent systems in nature.

Everything in the universe is information, at a fundamental level.

Sure. But leads can be lost.

I don't think that's a good analogy. My identity, my profile metadata, my followers and who I follow belong to me on Nostr. Not a relay. I don't have to reconstitute my network if I get kicked off a relay. I just have to find a new relay.

And look, some people may very well want to use moderated relays. As a parent, I might want that for my 14 year-old daughter. Online child exploitation is a real concern a lot of parents have! The point is, we choose. If people want a curated experience, I'm not going to wag my finger at them. If people want unmoderated firehoses, then those people will connect to every relay under the sun.

I think it would take very little time for people to catch on to any censorship, and immediately start adding other relays to route around it. This is the difference between it being a protocol versus a platform. I really am not worried about the scenario you outline.

The languages I am competent in are: C, C++, Java and JavaScript. And an esoteric scripting language I created (MVEL). That said, I've written a small amount of Python code in my day (including messing around with home automation with Home Assistant) and I think it's a great language to get into programming!

The point is the account model. The implementation details of the relays is really a much more minor concern, given the protocol design. You can always route around bad actor relays! That creates much better incentives. Period.

🫂

Nostr is freedom social media. Welcome.

Mostly the Democratic Party and some assorted other enemies, from what I can tell.

If you actually read through the information released, half of the internal emails are Twitter employees declining to censor things at the behest of government. But they were counting on people to just read the headlines and summaries, and not get into the weeds.

I don't imagine we'll be hearing anything from David Sacks on the matter!

That he's trying to score political points, and this is about revenge for him. Not free speech. Not getting at the truth.

Why?

The answer is obvious: doing so would undermine his bullshit narratives around child exploitation, which he knows is one of his hooks into a particular political constituency he seems obsessed with impressing.

I doubt it. They're Twitter's property now, since it's a corporate account.

Remember, Jack publicly invited Elon to release all his emails, and Elon declined to do it. Why do you think that is?