I recently explained nostr to some folks and one is a journalist at a mainstream publication whose name everyone knows. She was intentionally vague about her political affiliations but seemed pretty obviously aligned with PRC interests. When I finished explaining how the protocol works—emphasizing that it's permanent, un-ownable and censor-proof—her immediate response was "that sounds terrifying."
It's not clear to me what she meant, whether she is concerned about the potential impact to PRC discourse power, or whether she was put-off as a user by the prospect of an unfiltered social channel. Unfortunately because of the context of the discussion I wasn't able to probe for more feedback.
I am admittedly sympathetic to the idea that an unfiltered social channel is undesirable. I think all of us can agree that nobody wants an experience that exposes us to abuse and cognitive manipulation. These are a part of life that centralized platforms are required to mitigate.
At the same time, the inability to censor nostr is, I'm sure most users would agree, what makes it so powerful. But without giving users the toolkit to curate their feeds according to their own preferences, with filters that squelch the content we don't want to see, nostr will struggle to find an adoption lane. People need to feel somewhat safe to participate.
That nostr is uncensorable is what makes it a double edged sword. It cuts against tyranny on side, and cuts against political correctness on the other. The term "political correctness" usually has negative connotations but we ought to be mindful of the fact that we all expect a certain amount of dignity in our lives. We have societal norms for good reason. Our job building nostr is going to mean finding a way to maintain some basic standards of humanity.
Here's am example of how the existing platforms are being manipulated by the CCP and its strategic cognitive warfare—using sexual imagery to distract and deflect attention from what they consider to be politically "dangerous" discourse.
Another tactic is that they flood the replies of critics with abusive language and threats in order to make the experience as unpleasant as possible. Anyone who's had to read this kind of stuff in the replies knows the toxic feelings they stir-up. And the natural human response to feeling toxicity is avoidance, which in this context means diminished use, which for China means diminished criticism. The CCP clearly knows this and uses this emotional terrain to its advantage. They're literally using our cognitive biases to their benefit. It is quite literal "cognitive hijacking."
Even platforms with significant budget to defeat this stuff are having a hard time. We should be absolutely clear eyed that tactics like this will proliferate here as adoption rises.
