@cwebber with one of my big concerns about Bluesky:

[blackburied@newsie.social]

@rwg for me: I don’t want to be #googled again, where they start with #donoevil, wind you into a myriad of useful but interconnected apps that you come to rely on, go public, become beholding to shareholders, reduce functionality, charge for things they promised would be free forever, have zero support, reenforce #echochambers, (I could list problems all day) and no easy way to get out.

Never again.

[rwg@aoir.social]

@blackburied You're not alone, as you probably know.

[chimera@ieji.de]

@rwg @cwebber

Take a look at Nostr, really decentralized, truly censorship resistant, no possibility to implement ads or to buy it since it’s an open protocol free and accessible to all

[rwg@aoir.social]

@chimera @cwebber

I think recommending Nostr to Christine is like recommending playing basketball to Lebron. She knows a thing or two about it already...

[chimera@ieji.de]

@rwg @cwebber

It wasn’t directed towards anyone in particular, my bad if misunderstanding, also I don’t know her, nor you, I’m just doing my job as preaching the best network protocol

however, I do think that one’s who knows how Nostr works wouldn’t stay on another social network

[rwg@aoir.social]

@chimera @cwebber There's more to social networking than the underlying protocol. There are also social elements, such as governance, moderation.

As someone who has written extensively about various alternative systems, encryption systems, I know of Nostr but have little interest in using it or promoting it.

[chimera@ieji.de]

@rwg @cwebber

That’s the main features in my opinion, you are your own governance, your own moderator, you set your own limits and standards, not someone else’s

I do respect your choice, but I hope one day you will see the same way as I do, absolute decentralization and no censorship capabilities whatsoever will be our last bastion for freedom of speech in the near future, Mastodon (which I appreciate a lot) and Bluesky aren’t designed for that

[rwg@aoir.social]

@chimera @cwebber

I know Christine is on this thread, and she is not a fan of this point, but: I think the superior model is the fediverse's server approach. There is an admin and some moderators and then everyday users, all of whom agree to a code of conduct and have to make choices about other servers to federate with.

That way, individuals do not have to do all the moderation/governance on their own. Instead, choices are made at a community level.

[chimera@ieji.de]

@rwg @cwebber

Sorry if it sounds harsh, but I’m unable to understand how someone can be "not a fan" of being your own moderator, being sovereign about the feed you see, I would never let someone else control what I can/can’t be aware of

The admin controls everything, you don’t even own your data, nor your account (apart if you’re self hosting, but even then, you’re still censorable)

[rwg@aoir.social]

@chimera

(dropping Christine since she's probably not going to jump in)

Look, I totally understand your argument: if you are concerned that any person you know could potentially silence you at any moment, then Nostr is probably the right system for you.

My issue here is that the central idea -- that you cannot trust ANYONE at all, ever, only yourself -- is a failed technosocial view that paradoxically reinforces those who are already in power while throwing everyone else to the wolves.

[chimera@ieji.de]

@rwg

(I didn’t know you could choose to whom you respond to, thanks for learning me that)

What I don’t understand is why you aren’t concerned about being silenced, for example, from what I see you’re an activist (I strongly respect that) in domains some governments could want to erase

How is being sovereign reinforcing the elites at the cost of the others ? It’s a really interesting take

[rwg@aoir.social]

@chimera Let’s define terms. You’re saying “sovereign.” Is it fair to say you mean something like an inviolate, completely autonomous and capable individual person? Is that fair?