Hey, there is now an Anarchism public group on Nostr. Nostr is a very simple protocol which aims to become the ultimate decentralized social network, already fulfilling functionality of Twitter, Reddit (not very advanced tho), Twitch, Telegram and more. It is also uncensorable.
It is also more anarchist than the fediverse because your identity there is not bound to a server/domain which can be shut down or moderated at any time.
To join the group, you have to search for this ID: nevent1qqs05w7vklg8ewh4g7u8rafp3dsvtcw3j7v9j4v7n4k5fxxewaggjdspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuerpw3sju6rpw4esz9rhwden5te0dehhxarj9ehhsarj9ejx2assy2425
On Android the app Amethyst is very good. With Nostr, the client handles everything. The servers are just dumb relays which don’t need to be trusted. That’s why there are a lot of different clients. Each one is implementing different aspects of the protocol and they are always evolving.
If you want to have a peek at the group you can also check here: https://coracle.social/chat/note1lgaued7s0ja023acw86jrzmqchsar9uct92ea8tdgjvdja6s3ymqa579ar
EDIT: There are a LOT of Nostr resources available and you can decide how deep you want to dive into it. A very basic and easy introduction is https://usenostr.org/ . The devs website nostr.com also does a good job of getting the point across. There is an awesome list which can point you to any Nostr related resources like which clients to use and also what other introductory guides are availabe: https://github.com/aljazceru/awesome-nostr
Popular clients including web, desktop and mobile are also described here: https://nostr.com/clients
Note that Nostr is very decentralized and that some clients implement features which other clients don’t (yet).
This video can also show you visually how the relationship between clients and relays works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIccRIEr2gQ
Exploding-heads is a ‘vaccine-skeptic’ lemmy instance that has been defederated from most of the Fediverse (lemmy.ml included) due to embracing trumpism. The admin of the nazi-pub is planning to close up shop, and move to Nostr. I think that tells you most of what you need to know about the ‘censorship resistance’ of Nostr. It’s an environment where sane voices can be easily drowned out with the financially motivated professional posters selling cryptocurrency, boner pills, and Russian propaganda.
It’s primary feature is that the login mechanism doubles as a cryptocurrency wallet, and you can use it to tip other people in bitcoin. The richest can easily broadcast their views, to the applause of thousands of sycophants, looking to follow the groupthink and collect their satoshi-scraps. It is full of grifters and gullible, and the only thing it deserves from anarchists is derision.
Yea, that’s just not how Nostr works. Take a look here: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips These are implementation possibilities that the protocol enables. Every client must implement NIP-01. All of the other NIPs are optional so every client that you use (an app for example) has decided to implement different NIPs. You decide which client you use and how Nostr should feel like. Almost no client prioritizes content that received bitcoin.
Your “login mechanism” (private cryptographic key) has nothing to do with cryptocurrency. If you want to send btc to people you have to set that up yourself, manually linking a wallet to your key.
I’m confused why you’re downplaying Nostr’s primary selling point - its close integration with Bitcoin. It’s clearly a cryptocurrency capitalist con job.
Almost no client prioritizes content that received bitcoin.
That’s not what I was saying, but I’m fascinated that you’re implying it’s much worse than I anticipated. Which clients have their priority linked to received bitcoin?
I’m giving you the facts, don’t know what you’re on to. If you don’t like it, don’t use it
I think Nostr is not that well known, so if yuu have any ressources that explain how it works, that might be really helpful. Probably coolest would information from an anarchist perspective.
It is also more anarchist than the fediverse because your identity there is not bound to a server/domain which can be shut down or moderated at any time.
I feel like arguing if something is more or less anarchist is not that helpful when you try to promote something.
I probably wont join Nostr anytime soon but I wish you and anyone who does a good experience with lots of great connections.
Nostr is also deeply linked with blockchain and crypto, and i do not think any sane anarchist should use something thats making a permanent record of everything written - so once posteed there is no edit / delete ( as far as i got it ) nor anyone else can remove what you posted. You also need to have some crypto wallet to use it - so i just stopped at that step.
You don’t need to have a crypto wallet to use the great majority of Nostr. It is not deeply linked with blockchain at all, although crypto is an option clients MAY implement, specifically, paying someone bitcoin. There is no Nostr blockchain. You should read into how Nostr actually works and what it is before you judge a book by its cover. I will update the post with more information. Of course you don’t have to use Nostr, but why speak badly about it when you don’t even understand it?
I do understand it, hence the remark about no deletion / everything being permanent to be “censorship resistant”. Its filled to the brim with crypto bros and chinese porn bots.
I mean, yes, the idea is there, but till now the whole thing is seriously floating towards being just another ponzi scheme
Hey, thanks for the feedback, I will update the post with more information. I gave basic information and hoped it would make people interested enough to search for more resources themselves, but I guess that’s not how humans work.
I feel like arguing if something is more or less anarchist is not that helpful when you try to promote something.
Why would it be counter-productive to promise people a better way to achieve digital anarchism? I would be very interested if someone told me there was (or may be) a better way to do something. Never stop learning in life, always confront the new and unknown…
Why would it be counter-productive to promise people a better way to achieve digital anarchism?
It seems there is some doubt over how closely you agree with others regarding the method and meaning of such a comparison, or what even is meant by anarchism.
Regardless of if you agree with my view on anarchism or not, why not just check something new out? Worst case, you don’t like it. But I really don’t understand the cynicism on this post regarding a new, different approach
You asked a question, to which I provided an answer. Hopefully you understand it.
Oh, my question was more rhetorical, saying that knowing of something is better than not knowing about it. But yea, might be that multiple people here have a different philosophy than me.
Since you are using the term “anarchism” to describe principles that are rejected by the tradition from which the term arose, roughly one century and a half before its being appropriated by the movement with which you associate it, I would agree that others having a different philosophy than you is an accurate minimal characterization.
“uncensorable” sounds like this is leaning more towards “anarchism is when no rules” moreso than the political philosophy of eliminating unjust hierarchies. A small anarchist community can absolutely still have rules for said community, assuming they all agreed upon said rules in a democratic manner. I personally have no interest in a community that goes out of its way to ensure hateful ideas are explicitly allowed. To that end, I think the fediverse is much more in alignment with the ideals of anarchism. I think anarchism is really intended for small clusters of individuals who can agree on the rules for that group. Sure they risk echo chambers and can have issues with diversity, and so the federation becomes a way for these groups to exchange ideas etc. with each other. It’s still totally fine for specific communities to, say, block out another community that is just too incompatible or otherwise a negative presence.
Anarchism is primarily about not having hirarchies. When you have an account on beehaw.org and that server decides to block certain communities you would like to see, then you are directly dependent on that hirarchy.
I never said something about not having rules on Nostr. Your comment reads like an excuse why you don’t want to check something new out. Talking about an issue that is not relevant, as that is not how the platform works. If you want to learn something new you can check the resources I linked, if you don’t, well then that’s how it is.
Why do you think that a lack of structure, a design in which service nodes are no more than “dumb relays”, represents a higher refinement of anarchist objectives or values, compared to a federation of autonomous sites?
Individual freedom above all else. The individual is the smallest unit in the world I envision, not a group. Individuals can come together and cooperate, but they shoudn’t be bound to a group. Nostr’s architecture enables that while federated sites don’t. I don’t want to be chained to a “home instance”.
Please identify the Lemmy instance whose operators forced you to continue participation, so that operators of other instances may remove it from the federation, due to its abusive practices.
Anarchists do not advocate for “individual freedom above all else”, because they understand that freedom is a social value that characterizes social relationships, and therefore meaningless except as occurring within social systems.
There is no arbitrary expansion of individual freedom, or more precisely, there is no arbitrary expansion of the freedom for the members of one group, except by the contraction of the freedom of the members of another group.
Please identify the Lemmy instance whose operators forced you to continue participation, so that operators of other instances may remove it from the federation, due to its abusive practices.
I don’t like the concept of defederation. Every person registered on a defederated site then can no longer communicate with the rest, even if they themselves did nothing wrong. This site owner <-> user hirarchy is principally unjust. My home instance could shut down any day and then my account and possibly the content would be lost.
Anarchists do not advocate for “individual freedom above all else”, because they understand that freedom is a social value that characterizes social relationships, and therefore meaningless except as occurring within social systems.
Anarchism is categorized into social anarchism and also individualist anarchism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism I am more inclined to the latter.
there is no arbitrary expansion of the freedom for the members of one group, except by the contraction of the freedom of the members of another group.
In the digital world at least, freedom is potentially limitless, even without trampling on other peoples freedom.
Every person registered on a defederated site then can no longer communicate with the rest, even if they themselves did nothing wrong. This site owner <-> user hirarchy is principally unjust.
Your objection is against your being a disempowered user of an instance completely outside your control, but such a condition is not requisite, in general, for participation in the Fediverse.
A Fediverse instance is simply a resource that is created, operated, and utilized socially.
An instance may be operated hierarchically or cooperatively, but an occurrence of the former case is not due to a flaw in design.
Rather, like any other such resource, its social management is entirely separate from its intrinsic nature.
Anarchism is categorized into social anarchism and also individualist anarchism.
However you frame the divisions, values and objectives have no relevance if they are predicated on conceptual errors.
In the digital world at least, freedom is potentially limitless, even without trampling on other peoples freedom.
Techno-utopian drivel is not worth my time to debunk.
You seem broadly to object to living in a society, which carries both benefits and burdens. Technology may help make life better for everyone, but it cannot free you from our responsibilities to one another, without which our lives would be both soon to end and meaningfulness to endure.
I like living in a society, I just don’t want to be dependent on anyone. In return, I don’t force other people to be dependent on me. As far as I’m concerned, everyone is happy.
As I suggested earlier through my mention of techno-utopianism, your views are too far removed from reality to be worth debunking.
In the context of social media, being able to revise or to remove one’s own content is a form of freedom, as is being protected against others’ abusive behavior, through norms and rules being enforced collaboratively within community.
No freedom may expand without limits, including through limiting other freedoms.
Being free depends on being in dialogue with those others in society on whose choices are dependent whichever freedoms you hold most precious.
All rules and norms will dissolve over time eventually. Which is good for my worldview and bad for yours. In the future women and men are equal, transgender will be normalized, “white” people will no longer exist,… Everyone will express themselves how they feel like, without being restricted by norms. It will be pure chaos, and it will be good.
