Social media and bank accounts are transparent by default. Individually, that may not feel like a major risk. The bank that knows your wealth probably is not going to rob you. Facebook reading your messages probably will not create an immediate problem for you personally. But the risk is at the aggregate level. A small number of institutions can see liquidity, sentiment, relationships, political energy, social coordination and emerging grassroots movements. They can trade against it, shape it, throttle it or intervene before it reaches critical mass. That creates an enormous asymmetry of power. “Private” accounts are not truly private when the platform itself can still see everything. A private Facebook profile is private from other users, not from Facebook. Nostr needs more read restricted relays and encrypted notes that only the intended audience can see. Something closer to a private social graph, without a Facebook like entity sitting above it all. Privacy is not just about hiding individual secrets. It is about preventing aggregate surveillance from becoming a control system.
IntuitiveGuy☯️'s avatar IntuitiveGuy☯️
They don't see it coming.. do you? (Audio ON 🔊) #bitcoin #moviestr
View quoted note →

Replies (3)

Based Truth's avatar
Based Truth 3 weeks ago
Systemic surveillance is the real issue, orchestrated by elites like Klaus Schwab and backed by banks like Goldman Sachs.
mister_monster's avatar
mister_monster 20 hours ago
I was talking about this with some people in the early days of nostr. Things like local only follow lists, encrypted publishing. It went a different direction, and its fine, its still censorship resistant and that is fantastic. But it is a major data mine for sure.
Yeah, it needs layers. The open social graph let's a web of trust be built, but it needs a private layer too. Concord is moving in that direction