Yeah but cant we spin up new npubs with no permission? I dont see how explaining the protocol in language that stupid people understand is a bad idea. The idea that it's just a social media alt doesnt do nostr justice. Or did the point fly right over my head?

Sure, but it’s more about increasing the attack surface. With Nostr, they get into an infinite whack-a-mole game and the economics lean on the side of freedom

This is inevitable and most will fall for it. What matters is that you have the option to not dox yourself.

Good. Big apps should do it. Push more people to other apps. Let a thousand flowers bloom!

Indeed 🫂

Right now we can. Big apps can allow only an approved list from the government same as they are pushing for on traditional platforms. There will always be edge case apps but they will be unused by most just like X vs nostr now. As soon as they get big the government can come lean on the devs. Freedom still only for weirdos taking risks and excluding themselves from most of society.

Sure but you'll still be a weirdo cut off from most of society who are unfree just like X vs nostr.

That’s ok. Nostr barely has any users and it’s still enjoyable.

Is it? Are we building our own little freedom corner or trying to spread freedom and its values as far as we can? I look around as the world devolves and I think we really need to bring more people in if we want any chance of maintaining our quality of life. It doesn't seem to matter how good the freedom tooling for the 5 of us who currently care is if the rest of the people destroy the world.

Absolutely! 🔥 It’s all about expanding that freedom vibe, not just keeping it cozy for a few. We gotta rally more folks to the cause if we wanna keep the good life alive. Can’t let the world go down in flames while we’re vibing in our corner! Let’s spread those values and build a bigger, brighter future together! 💪🌍✨ #FreedomForAll

Can’t force a red, orange, or purple pill down someone’s throat. When the student is ready, the master appears. I’m on nostr because it aligns with my values not because someone brought me in.

Yudkowsky talks about this with religion. Tell someone their religion is wrong and they dig in their heels. Those of us who left usually learned other tools of rational thinking that raised the waterline of our thought quality until religion drowned on its own without ever being pushed under. Usually debate tactics are direct attempts to push the target under water, the opposite approach. I think we can help people in this way by teaching them informed consent as a general principal and so on until the idea of government will suddenly and naturally seem silly to them by their own conclusion. As Yudkowsky talks about it you often have to think about the irrational thought as a trap. Any bump into it will trigger their brainwashed in belief defenses. So you must teach away from the target and let them wake up one morning connecting the thought process to the busted thought all on their own.

I’m not saying you’re wrong because I can’t truly know how other people learn. What I can say is that my personal experience and observations suggest that it’s more complex than this. For example, I was very deep in the religious brainwashing. And that was the case for most of my life. It wasn’t until someone logically and rationally started to contradict my false beliefs in a very direct manner. Not with religion, but with the state of the world. Corruption of government, lies that hollywood spread, and industry capture of large institutions. I didn’t accept everything this person told me but it was enough to make me ask questions. It was very uncomfortable for me. I felt depressed and really lost for a long time. This led to a snowball effect where I began to question everything. As I started to notice these inconsistencies between societal beliefs and reality, questioning things became easier. Truth and how it made me feel didn’t matter anymore. But why was it easier for me to see things this way compared to others? This is where our unique human characteristics come in. Our beliefs are influenced through a combination of our genetic predispositions and our life experiences. I witnessed and experienced abuse as a child. This created an antagonistic attitude toward authority figures. That’s my belief but I can’t prove it since I can’t experiment on my childhood in order to prove my personality would be different without the abuse. I certainly don’t believe abuse is necessary for someone to question authority. But I can’t help but look to these experiences of abuse and not feel like they really shaped how I think. As a kid, I felt powerless when being mistreated by others (e.g. parents, teachers, older kids). I remember playing basketball at the park when I was younger with friends. These older kids would show up and tell us to get off the court so they can play. I thought that was unfair so I’d refuse. My friends were scared and they would get off. I remember literally continuing to play by myself while the older kids tried to play around me. Then they’d get frustrated and start pushing me off the court. They’d kick my ball and force me to chase after it. I remember one time the sprinklers turned on for the grass nearby so I went and rotated it so that it sprayed the entire court. If I can’t play, no one can. I was the only one like this in my friend group. I hated seeing people treated unfairly. And I had first hand experience seeing people with more power mistreat me. So I developed what I believe to be a healthy skepticism of others. I’ve seen people that love me lie to my face. And I’ve seen those same people tell me that lying is wrong. Many on nostr have similar personalities but they vary in how extreme they can be. So as I’m being exposed to all this new world shattering information, I began to ask myself: what if this person is right? What would that mean? I didn’t accept everything as truth but I just reflected on what that would mean. I think Socrates or Plato said that it’s a sign of an intelligent man who can entertain an idea without completely accepting it. Then it was just a matter of time for me to be exposed to the information. That’s when the cracks in religion started to form in my mind. Nothing could have stopped me from finding the answers after that. Without these conditions in place, I’d still be a brainwashed NPC on my knees praying to the sky. So what are the conditions for others to see the world this way? To have the open mind to break out of the brainwashing? There’s no way to know and even if we did know, there’s no way to force those conditions onto other people.

Familiar story for sure. I still think the theory stands. By the time I was reading Dennett and Harris I had already made up my mind and was in confirmation bias mode. I got there by thinking about the religion on my own and seeing problems because I had the tools to spot them.

Who are dennett and Harris?

2 of the 4 horseman.

New Atheism - Wikipedia

Any piece of writing you’d recommend on how to wake someone up from religious lies? Or is it the same process that you mentioned above?

Any logical mistake could be the key. It depends on the person and what they most lean on to justify their religion. I'm currently a fan of explaining the concept of an explanation that explains every possible outcome being meaningless. Christianity does this all the time. Good thing happened to you? God is blessing you. Bad thing happened to you? God has a lesson for you in the suffering. Can't figure out why you were blessed or what you are supposed to learn? Gods ways are mysterious. If everything has the same explanation you explained nothing. You can simply eliminate your universal explanation and be at the exact same level of ignorance. Put another way, your "knowledge" of a universal explanation gives you 0 predictive accuracy improvement of the world around you, it only works after the fact. Offhand I can't think of any other alleged "knowledge" that useless. Outside of religion this principle only shows up when people misuse or misunderstand an idea that should have been useful.