I've been wondering whether the most interesting thing about #NOSTR is not censorship resistance, the ability to transact financially, or data ownership, but the randomness of the experience itself.
In real life, we only ever encounter a tiny fragment of what Michael Oakeshott called "the conversation of mankind."
That fragment emerges through accidents: who we meet, when and where we live, and what we happen to read.
Algorithmically driven social media changed this. The fragment is no longer discovered. It is selected.
NOSTR feels different.
I still see only a tiny part of the conversation, but the part I see seems to emerge from chance encounters, relationships, timing, and curiosity rather than optimization.
The difference may be larger than it first appears.
Replies (6)
Yeah I think that describes the magic of Nostr.
That is interesting. I also sense the difference but until your post, just took it as X having more compelling content. I still think that’s true, but you’re right that maybe “compelling” isn’t the right yardstick. Nostr is closer to a digital version of real life. Not so much the bitcoin part (I don’t know so many bitcoiners IRL), but just the “randomness”.
I suspect "discovery" may be a better word than "compelling." One optimizes attention. The other produces encounters.
Perhaps we already have a recommendation algorithm. It's called curiosity. The interesting question isn't whether platforms recommend things, but whether they amplify our own recommendations or gradually replace them.
Agreed. There is no fixed view of anything unless you control a relay and use only a single client, you are at the whim. So the bustle and opportunistic phatic communion will occur more where there is less algorithm and more choice.
The inherent unpredictability of human interaction seems to be a defining characteristic – it's not simply about encounters, but how those fleeting moments shape our perception of reality.
