pull down to refresh

Agreed. None of the above is really ideal and I guess hence the frustration. Perhaps it's hard for people to wrap their minds around the concept of a protocol, especially if they weren't around when the internet was taking off.
As a side note, I didn't want to make this a size comparison between SN and Nostr "twitter" but since @k00b is reading, I'll just say that SN is by far more genuine and stimulating for me than any of the feeds on Nostr "twitter". Also, cf. @ek's recent discussion in meta, I find the rewards a nice incentive for new users. I get the nuance of users gaming it and so on, but I've seen nothing comparable on Nostr (have I missed something?). Mostly seems to be just the goodwill of the good people there, which is pretty admirable actually in its own right.
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 5h
I appreciate it. IMO it's less about Nostr vs SN and more about the problems Twitter-like platforms and Reddit-like platforms solve.
The best analogy I've come up: Twitter is like having a million friends to your house and giving them each their own iPad. Reddit is like a having a million friends over and there's a single TV and everyone has a remote.
Most people fail to appreciate how different that is and they think Twitter = people + algorithm + content = Reddit = Nostr = SN = any internet application on earth.
I get tons of "why isn't SN on nostr" concern trolling insinuating I'm too lazy/dumb/power hungry/greedy to create another centralized nostr client. It's perhaps too subtle for people that aren't actually concerned to appreciate, but the reality is: Reddit = people + algorithm + content + coordination.
Coordination without moderation/rulers is unsolved and that's what SN is largely trying to accomplish. I think internet scale coordination is THE 2nd killer use case for bitcoin, one that might save us from the Saylorification of Bitcoin (regulated, doomed to centralize SoV), and I'm less interested, perhaps to my deteriment, in what Bitcoin's Most Influential of 2024 want everyone exclusively using/working on.
reply