Thread

🛡️
In the middle of this interview the host, beginning to grasp the idea of Nostr, says something like: "I like this separation of powers". It is interesting that it's not hard for people to realize that that a big corporation controlling the "public square" isn't a good thing, but many will have an immediate impulse of trying to fix that situation by coming up with a protocol in which not one company controls everything, but multiple companies. This seems to be the mindset behind Mastodon, Matrix, Farcaster and Bluesky. They all assume users will be immediately subject to one server, one company, but that there is room for other companies to join and compete for users, or something like that (there are differences in how this plays out between all these protocols). So instead of one "corporate square" controlled by one company you end up (in the best case) with a bunch of private squares that may or may not have communication between them. Nostr is different because it tries to create a single square that is actually public and infinite in size where any company can open a stand, but also anyone can go and speak to whoever wants to hear without asking for permission from any of these companies, simultaneously any person or organization can find a corner (there are infinite corners) and talk only to a smaller group and so on.
View quoted note →

Replies (13)

"Separation of powers" online. Sounds good. Instead of one big boss, lots of little bosses (Mastodon, Bluesky, etc.). But you're still picking a boss. Choosing your landlord. Still living by their rules, just in a smaller building. Is that freedom? Maybe we prefer known limits. An ownerless space feels weird. We like having someone in charge, even just to complain about. Nostr tries something else: no landlord. Just a basic protocol, like email (SMTP). Anyone can use it, nobody owns it. Power isn't separated. It dissolves. Back to you, your client and relays. You choose what to see. No permission needed. The catch? More responsibility for you. Filtering, choosing. Independence takes effort. So, maybe the goal isn't better management. Maybe it's building something that doesn't need managing. An open protocol, not a collection of managed spaces.
Good write down. Worthy a share, even outside of nostr.
fiatjaf's avatar fiatjaf
In the middle of this interview the host, beginning to grasp the idea of Nostr, says something like: "I like this separation of powers". It is interesting that it's not hard for people to realize that that a big corporation controlling the "public square" isn't a good thing, but many will have an immediate impulse of trying to fix that situation by coming up with a protocol in which not one company controls everything, but multiple companies. This seems to be the mindset behind Mastodon, Matrix, Farcaster and Bluesky. They all assume users will be immediately subject to one server, one company, but that there is room for other companies to join and compete for users, or something like that (there are differences in how this plays out between all these protocols). So instead of one "corporate square" controlled by one company you end up (in the best case) with a bunch of private squares that may or may not have communication between them. Nostr is different because it tries to create a single square that is actually public and infinite in size where any company can open a stand, but also anyone can go and speak to whoever wants to hear without asking for permission from any of these companies, simultaneously any person or organization can find a corner (there are infinite corners) and talk only to a smaller group and so on. View quoted note →
View quoted note →
Mastodon, Matrix, Farcaster and Bluesky are capitalism: multiple companies competing. Nostr is communism: a single square that is actually public, shared in common,largely maintained through volunteering, which can be used by everyone and is owned by none. No corporate squares. That's why Nostr works better.
fiatjaf's avatar fiatjaf
In the middle of this interview the host, beginning to grasp the idea of Nostr, says something like: "I like this separation of powers". It is interesting that it's not hard for people to realize that that a big corporation controlling the "public square" isn't a good thing, but many will have an immediate impulse of trying to fix that situation by coming up with a protocol in which not one company controls everything, but multiple companies. This seems to be the mindset behind Mastodon, Matrix, Farcaster and Bluesky. They all assume users will be immediately subject to one server, one company, but that there is room for other companies to join and compete for users, or something like that (there are differences in how this plays out between all these protocols). So instead of one "corporate square" controlled by one company you end up (in the best case) with a bunch of private squares that may or may not have communication between them. Nostr is different because it tries to create a single square that is actually public and infinite in size where any company can open a stand, but also anyone can go and speak to whoever wants to hear without asking for permission from any of these companies, simultaneously any person or organization can find a corner (there are infinite corners) and talk only to a smaller group and so on. View quoted note →
View quoted note →