I wish I had known this sooner.

If you work hard enough to achieve your dreams, you will eventually face conflict with the people closest around you, who met you under different conditions. As listening to your newest trials, tribulations, challenges, and ideas will wear them out, usually for no monetary reward.

Under this situation, the person(s) close to you may find it easier to speak quick words of pessimism about your idea or vision, as means of not having it consume their time, while still protecting the friendship. In other words, they love you, but not your idea. And would rather keep you around, by letting it die.

When you face this situation, the best course of action is to acknowledge that your idea is taxing the relationship and their time, and to treat their pessimism as purely their survival mechanism.

The wrong way to face a close ally's criticism, is to treat their pessimism as the authoritative judgment of your idea. Because you're not really asking them to effortlessly buy it as your fresh target audience. This whole time you've been asking them to invest their time (for free) in a vision that you have not yet brought into this world for them to see.

Take a step back, and let the relationship return to the conditions under which it originally developed, and you'll be surprised when one day, they come around. But remember, they’ll never do so, until it’s clear that your idea no longer needs them.

There's a key lesson here:

Dave Smith and Doug Stanhope both were libertarian comedians. The difference is Smith stuck to his views, while Stanhope switched to support Obama

Although I think Doug Stanhope is far better at crafting though-provoking punchlines that are more related to the heart of libertarian philosophy,

While Dave Smith's actual standup routines are barely related to the core political positions in an academic sense. And on Smith's podcast, the majority of the time, it's just going over the news without punchlines.

In the end, sticking to principles won out, when you compare their fanbases, societal relevance, and financial success.

The lesson is:

Being an epic genius doesn't mean you'll be a legend, without integrity.

Ironically Democrats protesting Donald Trump, creates the conditions where he has to use authoritarian force to crush (sometimes) violent protests.

In other words, "no kings" will create a king.

A quick way to get a positive reaction out of Monero fans, is to criticize Bitcoin.

But fighting among ourselves isn't how we create a circular economy.

And if Roger Ver with a billion dollars couldn't stop the Blockstream propaganda, how are you going to do so with a budget of $0?

Accept them for who they are. And you might be surprised when one day they accept you.

Poll: Do you think Elon Musk fighting with Donald Trump is real?

Joe Biden authorizing missiles into Russia is reckless and irresponsible, he was voted out of office over this issue.

The US started the Ukraine war in 2014 with an illegal violent Nazi coup.

No, it’s not “Russian propaganda” to say: Avoid Nuclear War

The world is ass-backwards

They run Linux on the server

But Windows on their end-client

You're supposed to be able to verify and trust your local computer, while the cloud is hostile and unknown. What does it matter if the cloud is open source, if the other guy is running it?

I don't sell tea, no. I don't have the time, experience or products I can sell to actually make a business at this point. It could change down the road but it's definitely of something I can do at this point in time, unfortunately.

Who decides what to censor as spam?

Nostr and Lens solve the "spam and scam" problem by having the client decide. For example Amethyst for android will hide posts from accounts that others report as scams. These "others" are defined by people you follow, but this essentially puts it up to a community vote of large influencers to silence you.

On Lens, once you're labeled spam, you appear in the "show more" of comments. This is a huge turn-off to new users with no followers, who are treated like lower class citizens.

Farcaster solves it in a similar way, but by having the official team label it, and then since their client is so large and influential, their list is often distributed to other clients. This is absolutely horrible and way too centralized. While it's true that posts to your followers would still show up, they are effectively silencing your comments.

Session has zero censorship for mass DMs in the way I use it, even under outright sanctions. The nodes don't even know I am the sender, and I'm assigned new receivers if they drop me. That's why I like it. But the market likes simpleX more because it rotates encryption keys, so it's tough to get new followers. Can't fight the market.

Bastyon solves the problem by a community vote for outright illegal content, to get it off the nodes, such as child porn and narcotics sales. The voters are picked based on their total upvotes, called "reputation". I disagree with this approach, as if we're going to vote, it should be the nodes hosting it (like Arweave does)...

Files on Arweave have an unofficial vote, where the nodes can opt out of storing it. And if all the miners chosen in a block opt out, then there's no financial penalty for dropping the content. But if they have the content and others don't, then they have a financial advantage to mine that block over competitors. This approach is good for websites, but for a social network with permissionless replies, it's way too passive.

Therefore:

I disagree with all these solutions.

In my view, the best way to handle spam (in a permissionless system) is to allow the original poster to decide which replies are spam. Then the end user can decide to toggle on or off "criticism and spam" for the replies. After all, if you're following someone, you trust their judgment on the subject they are speaking about. And this decentralizes the decision to each individual poster.

Now I do the ironic thing, and turn it over to my replies. Do you think this approach is right?