vinney...axkl on Nostr: One way to explain nostr and the broader, related movements to normies, in case it's ...

One way to explain nostr and the broader, related movements to normies, in case it's helpful to you:

If you're familiar with Wikipedia, you might be aware that anyone _can_ edit Wikipedia - but the final say over what information is available is determined by a team of editors. All well and good for Wikiepedia, it's a "centralized entity" that is rightfully incentivized to have some degree of control over its content.

What we're doing is allowing for "many wikipedias" all in the same place, where the **consumer** determines which writers and which institutions they choose to trust for their information. The point of view you inhabit at any given time - who you trust, what you believe, etc. - determines your experience. And you are free to adjust this at your leisure, with no loss of access or functionality. And "Wikipedia" is just an example - we're applying this paradigm to all digital communications and applications.
If you happen to go along with whatever the current zeitgeist is for a given platform or area of information or social experience, you wouldn't notice much of a difference using a system like I'm describing.

And if it sounds "scary" or "dangerous" for you to imagine "the wrong people seeing the wrong information" then that might be an indication that - to put it crudely for the sake of making a point - "your team" currently holds the reigns of power and/or gate-keeps the information commons... So, consider what would happen if that flipped, and whoever you most fear held all the power and had final approval over what information can be shared and which social interactions and relationships were permitted. In that scenario, you'll be thankful that the system I'm describing _is already in place_, because by then it would be too late to build it.