So you are a creator excited about nostr. You start using app A and like it, and you want your fans to join. You recommend app A and they start using it. Then app A changes - bans, censors, prioritises features you don't like etc. You've spent your clout to promote an app that you no longer like. You can switch, but it's hard to persuade your followers. That may or may not be a big or common problem, we don't know yet. But outbox model doesn't solve it. "Apps are interoperable" lowers the bar for switching, but it remains to be seen for how much. Does this make no sense?
Replies (2)
I know you’ve got something in the works so I’m interested to see more, but I would have said this is why you use open source as a selection criteria for the apps you use. If they go in a bad direction, *you* or *someone else* in the community of users that also likes the app will fork it if the developers go in a direction that is bad. And it’s why we should select apps/clients that do things in an interoperable way so the switching cost stays low. But I don’t think other recourse exists.
No, it doesn't make sense because the outbox model should solve bans, censorship and all that. And I assume no one ever switches apps. Why do you think the outbox model doesn't solve it?
I can see two problems there, but they feel unrelated: one is that as a creator you can recommend the wrong app -- an app that is not a real Nostr client, but something with the power to censor people -- and later regret; the other is that for a private community we need something else other than just outbox model, but I think we can stick to the outbox model for public posts in this discussion?
