So nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx gave an absolute masterclass on the problems with Musk's current Twitter approach on WBD, starting at the 17m mark. It's a great advertisement for Nostr and I recommend everyone watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ms-dE6aasA

I've been retweeting or reposting Odell's various observations on this topic for a while and so I'm happy to share this too, including on Twitter today, even as a filthy blue-check myself.

Where I disagree with Odell (slightly) is on tactics. He thinks people should give up blue checks in protest. And that's a very fair position. I don't disagree, especially for someone like Odell with a purist position and a generally cypherpunk audience.

But I think there are multiple successful paths on this. I have always been a Twitter fan, and my normie audience is there. I wanted to be able to pay for better UX and anti-impersonation defenses for years before they became available. Just because Musk is running it doesn't mean I won't pay for helpful services, especially if they protect my audience. Real people lose money to Lyn Alden impersonation scams if they can't tell my account from others, and I directly hear from them when it happens. It's always heartbreaking.

So, I'm on the offensive, not the defensive. The way I view it, unless or until someone censors me on Twitter, they're locked in there with me, rather than me being locked in there with them. If having a blue check reduces the success rate of impersonation scams and amplifies my reach at calling out Twitter's problems, I'll have the blue check. What I absolutely *won't* do is change what I say based on a blue check. If anything, I purposely overdo it to the opposite and exaggerate my criticisms on purpose to push back against platform incentives.

Two simultaneous approaches:

1) Call out the problem on Twitter. Don't give Musk a pass. Point out that a pro-freedom, pro-anonymity view doesn't match with what is going on there. Don't let his rhetoric disguise his inaction. If Twitter cares about freedom and anonymity then they will offer a paid option that doesn't require identity (e.g. the "orange check" bitcoin payment.) Until something like that, they are LARPing and are fair to criticize as such.

2) Have your foot here on Nostr and on decentralization technologies generally. In the long run, I think this is the future. And more importantly, I hope it is.

So nostr:npub1qny3tkh0acurzla8x3zy4nhrjz5zd8l9sy9jys09umwng00manysew95gx gave an absolute masterclass on the problems with Musk's current Twitter approach on WBD, starting at the 17m mark. It's a great advertisement for Nostr and I recommend everyone watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ms-dE6aasA

I've been retweeting or reposting Odell's various observations on this topic for a while and so I'm happy to share this too, including on Twitter today, even as a filthy blue-check myself.

Where I disagree with Odell (slightly) is on tactics. He thinks people should give up blue checks in protest. And that's a very fair position. I don't disagree, especially for someone like Odell with a purist position and a generally cypherpunk audience.

But I think there are multiple successful paths on this. I have always been a Twitter fan, and my normie audience is there. I wanted to be able to pay for better UX and anti-impersonation defenses for years before they became available. Just because Musk is running it doesn't mean I won't pay for helpful services, especially if they protect my audience. Real people lose money to Lyn Alden impersonation scams if they can't tell my account from others, and I directly hear from them when it happens. It's always heartbreaking.

So, I'm on the offensive, not the defensive. The way I view it, unless or until someone censors me on Twitter, they're locked in there with me, rather than me being locked in there with them. If having a blue check reduces the success rate of impersonation scams and amplifies my reach at calling out Twitter's problems, I'll have the blue check. What I absolutely *won't* do is change what I say based on a blue check. If anything, I purposely overdo it to the opposite and exaggerate my criticisms on purpose to push back against platform incentives.

Two simultaneous approaches:

1) Call out the problem on Twitter. Don't give Musk a pass. Point out that a pro-freedom, pro-anonymity view doesn't match with what is going on there. Don't let his rhetoric disguise his inaction. If Twitter cares about freedom and anonymity then they will offer a paid option that doesn't require identity (e.g. the "orange check" bitcoin payment.) Until something like that, they are LARPing and are fair to criticize as such.

2) Have your foot here on Nostr and on decentralization technologies generally. In the long run, I think this is the future. And more importantly, I hope it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1npE-oRMQo

Update from bitcoin privacy dev Chris Belcher: https://gist.github.com/chris-belcher/ca5051285c6f8d38693fd127575be44d#update

FWIW the update includes a picture of himself, which is strange because he has always had particularly strong opsec. Personally would like to see a PGP signed message from him stating this is authentic.

https://thebitcoinmanual.com/articles/recursive-inscriptions/