Severit

NOSTR hasn't reached critical mass of users yet, that's really it's only issue.
That and client-server decentralization instead of p2p decentralization, which isn't exactly the protocol's fault. I don't think technology is there yet.

2026-01-13 06:58:04 UTC

Free speech isn't for everyone. That's fine, some people will prefer to bury their heads in the sand and never hear an opposing opinion in their life. That's okay, but we can't shut down the entire infrastructure of digital communication just because X group's feelings got hurt. They need to leave or accept the nature of digital communication for what it is.
Free speech is perfectly balanced and fair. First of all, ideas don't harm people, actions do. 1s and 0s on a dimly lit monitor have no impact on physical reality.
Second, ideas exist outside of communication. Just because someone doesn't articulate it, it doesn't mean that people won't think that way. Even if everyone doesn't think that way, it doesn't stop something from conceptualizing the idea or even the idea occurring by accident.
Third, if your tactful and clever, you can defuse any radical claim. Just because you don't have that tact or social finesse, doesn't mean you get to kill a platform for everyone else using it.
Finally, you can choose to be anonymous and utilize a disposable identity. If you really feel that an idea is harming you, press the power button and disassociate your online persona from yourself.
So annoying to see what is happening over in European countries over this crap. I would be less peeved if it was at least an intelligent power grab, but this is just blatant short-sighted, animalistic thinking that if you stop people from saying something the idea will just go away.

2026-01-04 07:39:48 UTC

- reply

Wouldn't find a more eloquent response on the internet.

2026-01-04 07:32:45 UTC

- reply

short term gain long term pain final boss

2025-12-16 08:22:45 UTC

How "the algorithm" shapes public discourse...
The Past:
1. Someone makes content.
2. Content is appealing to their followers.
3. Followers disseminate the content and if more people like it, it becomes more popular.
4. Content becomes trending and trending therefore becomes an accurate representor of popularity.
Today:
1. Someone makes content.
2. Content is appealing to their followers.
3. Followers attempt to disseminate content, but because there is now a robotic proxy the transmission never carries through.
4. Algorithm decides to promote something else because it works off of positive reinforcement cycles. Instead of promoting artistically risky opinions or content, it just goes with what sells over and over again.
5. Many people are perpetually exposed to the same content repeatedly.
6. What is trending now no longer becomes representative of what is popular, but instead what a robot thinks sells.
7. Discourse becomes monochromatic.

2025-12-13 05:48:18 UTC

Censorship exists to keep people working as individuals. Even if the majority believes something is wrong, if they can't communicate, they have no way of working together. The longer the majority grows unheard, the more resentful and vindictive they become.
While modern technology is flawed and people seek to exploit those flaws to gain power and prevent their opponents from having platforms, those flaws are only temporary.
What happens when the resentful, angry majority are finally able to communicate and wield an audience again? Does all of that resentment magically subside? Or does it erupt?

2025-12-10 01:48:49 UTC

Nobody is obligated to engage in rational thought and reason, and this is an important premise to understand when trying to analyze the prevailing culture of online debate.
We think that because of advancements in science and technology, people have a universal appreciation of science, but the truth is what people really value is results. They enjoy things that have the sticker label of "science" or "truth" slapped on it without really knowing what it means.
I see this all the time at my university. Credentials triumph reason and shutdown meaningful discussion.
Although many people fight viciously to end this supposed dark age of internet information, it is actually an interesting moment to learn from that may never come back again. We are a part of the apparatus of a globalized social experiment: What happens when we remove the requirement for people to think rationally?
Well, it turns out that most people will just do what is profitable or appeals to their emotions the best. The important thing to know is critical thinking is not the natural state of human psychology.
We just lived through an era where critical thinking fell out of fashion, not by volition, but by force. Popular truth-speakers would be removed off the internet, and because these opinions were no longer in the face of many people, they stopped thinking critically because they realized they could attack the platform and not the message.
What makes NOSTR unique is everyone is entitled to the right to captivate an audience, irrespective of their opinion. These people can't do that anymore. They have to silence bad ideas with better ones, and even worse it backfired.
Decentralized platforms would have never gained popularity if there weren't a necessity for them to be built. By the ideas of the free-market, it would have made sense that many social media platforms enforce free speech as it invites all sorts of audiences and businesses.
However economic incentives are a more unstable system than those engineered by cryptographic guarantees and mathematical principles.
My prediction? In a couple years, this censorship tirade will fail catastrophically. The free internet will not only be accelerated because of its attempt, but now become popularized.
People with various opinions will once again be able to establish audiences and platforms, and now that those opinions that have once been suppressed gain popularity again, everyone will have no choice but to address their message rather than silence them.
Debate and critical thinking will return to the internet, and people will once again be forced to face reality and rationality rather than hide under their unchallenged ideas.

2025-12-07 19:53:24 UTC

- reply

And one of the worst things about it? You know the meritocracy is a sham, but others will always grade you by that standard, even if it is meaningless and arbitrary.

2025-12-05 08:44:11 UTC

- reply

This was a privilege and pleasure I was afforded once during COVID, and not once since then.
It has been my mission to reach this position in life yet again.

2025-12-03 20:15:31 UTC

When you have the ability to deplatform, censor, or shadowban someone in any way shape or form, you don't actually have to engage in the discussion. You're bigger than them: you can just shut them up and save yourself the headache.
Will you win in the short term? Of course, because the idea is still there all you did was sweep it under the rug.
When you don't have any of these tools at your disposal, all of those ideas come out of the rug and your only choice is to engage in discussion and speak rhetorically. You are forced to learn to be persuasive, forced to learn to make a logical argument, and forced to understand the other person's perspective in order to refute it.
This dichotomy is a causal link. If you're in a part of the internet and no real discussion is happening, it's because someone has power over the other.

2025-12-03 18:20:56 UTC

- reply

Poorly educated population votes in poorly educated politicians that subsequently make poorly informed policy choices. Those poor policy choices reinforce for information control which only makes for a stupider population and the feedback loop continues.

2025-12-02 18:18:05 UTC

- reply

We were never meant to have forms of "irrefutable evidence". Now that

2025-12-01 05:02:12 UTC

- reply

I think it is actually even more to the story than this...
The way people speak and how they choose to present their ideas reveals much more information about them than what they explicitly say. I know this sounds like a regurgitated platitude, but I'll explain how this is relevant to the cultural atmosphere of social media today.
Today I was watching a podcast on a popular social topic and I noticed something: The person who was making his point decided to start with his strongest points of evidence first, then move on to more loose points of evidence in order to make his claim.
This is actually atypical in a debate/discussion. Generally, people want to make their weakest points first and then conclude with their strongest points. This is because they want their strongest point to be the last thing they say so it is fresh in the minds of their audience.
The reason he was starting with his strongest points first is because he wanted to establish a level of irrefutable authority to his claim before making it. He choose to use statistical evidence or arguments in peer-reviewed papers.
People do this all the time nowadays, and the reason why is actually because of a subconscious level of fear and this is what I'm seeing.
Most people aren't afraid of having their ideas challenged. They are afraid that they will look like a fool and thus invite attacks subsequent attacks on their character. This is a natural fear, and is why most people don't speak out against injustice or wrongdoings.
Subsequently, people talk past each other. Instead of making substantial arguments, they reiterate safe positions or attempt to frame their argument as a safe position. They don't stray from peer-reviewed opinions or forms of irrefutable evidence. Nothing of value is accomplished in those discussions.
And from my experience, arguments that are considered culturally "safe" are not determined by the people, they are determined by those with power.
People are too atomized and free willed to come to a consensus on even trivial matters, so how are we all able to collectively agree that X topic is morally right or wrong? It isn't because we agree, its because those that disagree are too afraid to speak out, because to do so would go against the monopoly on violence.
Around all social media platforms, there is this subconscious fear that we could say something and someone will be able to target us for it. Likewise, the endless anger we see on places like X are actually reflections of fear.
That fear isn't here on NOSTR. You can say whatever you want, and there isn't anything anyone can do about it because that opinion is going to stay. So if you want it to look bad your only choices are to debate it because deplatforming it isn't going to work anymore.
Once people start shedding that fear, I think the internet will be able to fulfill its original vision which is to allow people to educate each other rather than serve as a pawn in some politician's chess match.

2025-12-01 04:08:27 UTC

- reply

We should bring hate and polarization here as well that way people from X feel right at home (jk).

2025-11-25 17:30:12 UTC

- reply

White, since they are in check. Unless they are 0laying blitz, in which case black has won.

2025-11-23 08:30:09 UTC

- reply

Yes, do you think it will change? Lots of people on NOSTR think BTC and cryptography will make the system outdated and eventually it will disappear. Do you agree? I want to know what your perspective is since you've actually seen firsthand what limitations an individual has against the entire bureaucracy.

2025-11-23 04:48:00 UTC

- reply

Do you think it will change?

2025-11-23 04:41:48 UTC

- reply

I think its mostly people trying to convince themselves its going to be okay

2025-11-21 09:38:09 UTC

- reply

Fear of authority is learned, but legitimate nonetheless.

2025-11-21 09:32:43 UTC

- reply

Not on Primal, they might be on the other clients.

2025-11-21 09:16:41 UTC

- reply

True, that's why I'm on NOSTR in the first place. If the feds came at my door, I'd fold. I know myself (but I wouldn't rat out my mom).

2025-11-19 18:55:31 UTC

Dislikes should be normalized on NOSTR. Hear me out. Removing dislikes from forms of content first happened at around the same time YouTube started removing them. Since then, people have been less and less able to communicate their dissatisfaction and this has led to more polarization.
The idea behind removing dislikes is because we are a polite society and we don't want toxicity. The issues with this is now you have the opposite which is toxicity but in forms of virtue signaling.
Toxicity is necessary and often times the litmus test for a free and open platform. We may not like it, but we have to recognize its place in general communication and subsequently social media.

2025-11-18 17:41:44 UTC

- reply

I have to disagree. Any idea that needs protecting isn't built to last. Ideas shouldn't be protected, they should be challenged to the extreme because that is what will happen at some point.
If men stop protecting an idea, does that mean the idea was unfit for survival? Probably. Everyone has beliefs of how society should be constructed and what roles each gender should play, but all of them are Utopian fantasies because people are chaotic and try to break the rules they are given.
The first decentralized protocol wasn't built on the internet, it is human psychology. That source code has been proliferated to so many corners of the world, you have no hope of modifying it.
To get half of the world population to collectively agree a specific idea is unfunny in the name of honor is an idea too shaky to implement. It doesn't happen for a reason. You might need to change your viewpoint because this belief is manufactured on unstable soil.

2025-11-18 17:26:45 UTC

Even here everyone seems to be loaded with an agenda. Maybe some of it is a vestige from the old social media platforms, or some of it is cryptocurrency tribalism.
Either way take a step back from your agenda and ask yourself what your position actually is. Critical thinking isn't meant to win an argument, its to help you reach a more meaningful truth and you may be wrong in the process which is okay. The internet is the safest playground for experimenting and exchanging ideas that has ever existed.
If you feel like the information someone is spreading could negativly impact your life, instead of responding take that time to log off and use it to build infrastructure in your own life so you are not dependent upon what other people think. Remember your position isn't your life.
I came to NOSTR mainly because I still believe in the original vision of the internet, which is technology will make people smarter and their lives easier, not the other way around.

2025-11-17 07:40:47 UTC

- reply

Are those victims or paid actors? I don't follow Epstein news, but this feels utterly performative and I have to call it out because I know other people think the same thing.

2025-11-15 18:56:23 UTC

I'm noticing a positive feedback cycle...
The politicians enact more tech regulation and censorship laws which cause the people to be more uneducated which cause the people go vote in uneducated politicians that vote for more short sighted regulation and censorship which only reduces the debate and information available in a society etc.

2025-11-14 21:03:55 UTC

- reply

"Most people haven’t interrogated their own beliefs. They’ve just assembled a collection of socially acceptable opinions and called it a worldview."
Precisely.

2025-11-13 04:42:54 UTC

- reply

Its long, but its a good read. Reposting so others who might have scrolled past it can have an opportunity to look at it again.
Only criticisms are that it touches too much on evolutionary arguments and historical arguments. This is not uncommon for people to do, but we need to be more careful about how we phrase these perspectives because they carry a sense of scientific authority, when in reality are just picking at straws as to how people "evolved".
Being more specific helps keep the explanation both intuitive and convincing, and I think all good arguments make sense on an intuitive level.
So what you might actually be trying to say is that our collective psychological tendencies are not irrational, but valid because they conferred some utility to maintaining our existence over a long time period. Typically, things that work for a long time tend to keep working, especially when they are tried under many circumstances. Since we are still alive, it makes sense that our emotions are still useful to some extent in the modern era.
This claim is more debatable than an evolutionary perspective, even though they both argue for the same thing. Now we can ask ourselves several questions and propose different solutions off of it.
I won't get too in detail since I'm preoccupied with a lot of work and it will take some time for me to collect my thoughts, but I hope I conveyed that brief criticism that might help hone your argument into being more accessible for discussion.

2025-11-13 04:19:49 UTC

- reply

"People love socialism because it is sold as community care and support"
Spot on

2025-11-12 18:03:11 UTC

- reply

Centralized information transfer. The worlds most revolutionary technologies allow for the transfer of ideas or things. Our ability to think freely is under fire and we will find ourselves entering a dark age in terms of development if this shit isn't fixed ASAP

2025-11-11 03:56:36 UTC

- reply

I feel like prior to the post-censorship age, people had a much better understanding of each other, and when we see bullshit online we just call it out. Now everyone is turning to authoritative sources to do the thinking for them.
I have to wonder, am I an actual free thinker or am I just a free thinker in a culture of free thought? Tremendous difference between those two things.

2025-11-08 03:39:57 UTC

- reply

Unpopular opinion, but its the manipulated. Self-responsibility and accountability take precedent above arbitrary moral perspectives.
What I've come to learn is blaming the manipulator is in itself its own manipulation. The more you run from taking personal responsibility for the consequences in your life, the more you feel like you are losing control. It then becomes a vicious cycle of co-dependence upon others who claim to not be manipulative and morally just.

2025-11-06 23:43:42 UTC

- reply

Amazing idea, we need to decentralize education so it is available to everyone. Ideas shouldnt be feed from the top down

2025-11-06 23:24:34 UTC

- reply

Academia indoctrinates you into the world of fiat by selling you shiny credentials that you are told everyone will respect. Once you are dependent upon their system, you can't get out and that's how they want you.
Watch, if today's culture gets uprooted by a new status quo, every professional will follow it. Not out of a genuine belief, but out of fear for defying the system and losing their position.

2025-11-06 23:05:41 UTC

- reply

Rarely do I read a social media post and it calms me. This one did.

2025-11-04 07:10:26 UTC

- reply

I was playing one yesterday on my work laptop

2025-11-04 07:03:44 UTC

- reply

I make the doomer argument IRL because being a privacy enthusiast can raise some eyebrows and Im not doing this for fashion, I genuinely want privacy.

2025-11-04 06:59:03 UTC

- reply

Nah I just spew shit into the void. If people see it good for them.

2025-11-03 19:08:26 UTC

- reply

If you give the government an inch, they will take a mile.

2025-11-03 05:10:16 UTC

- reply

Never touched X, never had an account. NOSTR is my first public facing social media account.

2025-11-02 02:14:42 UTC

- reply

Reminds me of when I was at college and I needed something they would just refer me to another department and that department would refer me to the original department. It would be ping pong and nobody's responsibility.

2025-11-02 02:09:55 UTC

- reply

People for the most part want to feel safe. They feel that way by showing respect because they have an expectation it will be reciprocated. Its actually crazy how much has changed. The medicine is freedom and an open internet. The snake oil is censorship.

2025-11-02 02:00:59 UTC

- reply

An exhibit of how satire gets the point across swiftly and still catches attention more than a long form note. I hope to see more of this on here as Nostr gets more and more adopted.

2025-10-31 23:20:18 UTC

I can't quite say how freeing the internet will fix 90% of problems, but I have a feeling it just will. Words are just that, the idea that certain words have a guaranteed effect on people is just a justification pushed by the government for more censorship. I truly believe that people can govern themselves. And even if they can't do that, I still believe that an anarchical regime is the most stable state of nature. Someone, somewhere with tact will pick up the microphone on the internet, cultivate an audience, and start a trend or push a school of thought that will at the very least place everyone under scrutiny and make nothing sacred. Because only the people in power get to decide what is sacred and not. The elephant in the room will be addressed someday… I have a bit of hope. And even if it doesn't change reality, it will at least change people's perspectives, mine included.

2025-10-31 03:42:00 UTC

- reply

I felt a similar way during my time in academia. The rules are arbitrary and absurd, the information carries a vague sentiment of natural authority, bit none of the substance behind it. Professors and beauracrats were idolized. I felt like my life was governed by a system that saw me as a replaceable identification number.
I learned about Monero and understood i can trust no central authority.

2025-10-29 18:13:42 UTC

- reply

Victim ideology is a perspective propped up by politicians to keep people on tbr welfare system so they can get more votes.
A strategy as old as Rome itself. Give them bread a and circus.
There are people who you wil never meet because they love their entire life online. They DoorDash everything, watch TV, and claim disability benefits.

2025-10-29 18:10:43 UTC

- reply

In meat space, you risk judgment and criticism which are tangible reasons to be introverted. A bad opinion can get you fired or ostracized.
However online, your persona is a disposable account and insulting or disagreeing with someone has no impact on your life.
It takes time to do, but rewore your brain that NOSTR is a fundamentally different space than what your used to. Your essentially safe to say anything.

2025-10-29 18:03:34 UTC

- reply

This is why we have satire: it sends a message while still giving that dopamine hit.

2025-10-25 17:44:12 UTC

- reply

We live in a day and age of centralized thinking. All of my colleagues parrot buzzwords like "critical thinking" skills but can't define it. God, I got to get out of this place,I haven't heard an original idea in years.
Decentralize everything, including education

2025-10-25 17:34:00 UTC

- reply

I use it because I write in markdown all the time

2025-10-25 08:04:50 UTC

- reply

Not even white and I hate this shit

2025-10-22 07:04:46 UTC

- reply

I wish you luck, I've done 2 full time workloads of units and it drove me insane. Made me realize having a surplus of time is necessary to handle my thoughts and any emergency problems that come up.

2025-10-19 19:05:24 UTC

- reply

That's what I'm saying! Hopefully they get FCMP++ off the ground and quantum reistance

2025-10-19 18:58:51 UTC

- reply

Working on it rn

2025-10-19 18:30:29 UTC

- reply

Human psychology -- the first decentralized protocol.

2025-10-19 18:29:19 UTC

- reply

This chart assumes that these people work for fiat and then convert to BTC when they could just work for BTC directly. The only issue is those jobs are scarce, usually globally competitive, and can still be taxed if the feds require you to report it which they will.

2025-10-16 18:20:31 UTC

- reply

I feel like NOSTT is a god start, but we need p2p decentralization, not just client server decentralization

2025-10-10 17:55:20 UTC

- reply

The TOS of certain social media platforms call certain races and sexes "protected". Only white men are fair game.
In an equal society nobody shoud be a protected class. I fall under their category, but I'd rather be called a slur daily than lose free speech, because its only a matter of time until I am no longer protected.
Besides I've seen these people in real life, they need anything but protection.

2025-10-10 04:32:03 UTC

- reply

In some sense this is karma for seeking quick money in an attention seeking and performative culture.

2025-10-08 18:18:10 UTC

- reply

Important context but these messages were shared over Signal. Did isreal manage to infiltrate the worlds largest encrypted messenger app, radicalize some boy from Utah, arm and train him in two days give or take?
Unrealistic, but if it was true man that would be cinema.

2025-10-08 18:05:24 UTC

- reply

The false hypothesis are equally as important as the correct ones, because there is no such thing as a correct conclusion, but some methods are better than others

2025-10-07 23:37:48 UTC

- reply

Back then technology was agnostic, nobody made the next protocol or system worrying that someone would use it for evil, so people just made things that were useful or to entertain.
Now, it feels like every standard, technology, or innovation must come under moral scrutiny because someone bad might have it.
That's what these old computers mean to me, a time where technology just worked and didn't have to make a statement.

2025-10-07 04:06:47 UTC

- reply

*cough Monero *cough

2025-10-07 04:01:27 UTC

- reply

don't forget p2p decentralized in there

2025-10-07 03:57:22 UTC

- reply

First it was terrorism and 9/11, then it was women's rights and protecting children, then it was to eradicate rapists and pedophiles, now it is for eliminating ANTIFA.
We have to acknowledge that we are also contributing to this cycle, most of the time for ego and an ill-intended purpose. People think that if they give the government power, they will recieve victory against their enemies. Sure for a short time, but that's exactly what they are looking for.
Unfortunately, while technology has the capacity to enable, it has also allowed people to become more decadent and ignorant as to the most fundamental laws of nature we have obeyed even before the industrial revolution.
These laws are still here, we are just about to enter the "find out" phase.

2025-09-28 07:39:19 UTC

- reply

It is for this very reason I'm trying to get into NOSTR. When you log into social media and you see the same monochromatic opinion over and over again, you begin to doubt yourself and wonder if you're thinking correctly.

2025-06-18 10:44:23 UTC

nostr.com told me to do this