He's correct, nostr doesn't fix CEOs getting arrested. But his point is also moot because targeting CEOs of nostr apps, even of big ones, will never have the disruptive return for governments that the arrest of a centralized platform's CEO has, mostly because switching costs are close to zero for nostr users, while there is no switching option for telegram users.
That's the argument I made as the debate progressed.
he's not correct because arresting nostr app CEOs is irrelevant. The value is in the nostr network and governments will not go after the app CEOs because you can plug in another app and reduce the efforts of governments to garbage. So governments will not even attempt going after a CEO of some app with 50,000 users.
I just don't understand your point and also Parker Lewis clearly doesn't understand the value proposition of nostr.
The greatest threat vector to nostr is to allow social-selling to make the base-implementation protocol too complex for a new dev to quickly spin up a basic social app. I believe the protocol architecture, clear goals and the NIP system mitigates but doesen't eliminate the possibility.
Oddbean new post about login | logout