mikedilger on Nostr: I think the styling is fine. I like that all 5 websites I listed are shown and don't ...
I think the styling is fine. I like that all 5 websites I listed are shown and don't take much space.
Although many people on nostr think zaps are the best thing since sliced bread, I'm not sure that will draw in more people than it will repulse even with the red explanation. For this crowd I think we should leave off that selling point. Many normal people get nervous once you talk about sending money, either due to fear of the government and being a criminal, or fear of a scam.
Let them get orange pilled after they get purple pilled.
I think mentioning something more like "a protocol not a company" might be more effective than "A company doesn't own your nostr, you do" because the latter isn't clear that there is no company behind this at all... just that the possibly imainged company claims to not own you. So even though "protocol" is a technical word, I think it communicates a lot here in one word that non-technical people can just gloss over without being too confused.
"Your followers can find your content, regardless of where on nostr you post your notes" is informative, but doesn't quite explain how it is that nostr is censorship resistant, whereas something like "you can post to any servers you choose, there are already thousands, and you can dynamically move away from servers that censor you without affecting your followers" or something like that.... at least people that have tried Mastodon will understand that.
I don't think "highly customizable settings" will matter to these people, nor "built around a web of trust of who you follow."
Instead of very short bullet points like these, I think fewer but longer explanatory phrases would be more effective. These will be highly educated politically active older people, less interested in bullet points that are too short for them to get the picture, and possibly even the kind of people who would read proposed legislation which is ridiculously detailed and precise. So we should move to longer sentences with more precise statements I think.
Although many people on nostr think zaps are the best thing since sliced bread, I'm not sure that will draw in more people than it will repulse even with the red explanation. For this crowd I think we should leave off that selling point. Many normal people get nervous once you talk about sending money, either due to fear of the government and being a criminal, or fear of a scam.
Let them get orange pilled after they get purple pilled.
I think mentioning something more like "a protocol not a company" might be more effective than "A company doesn't own your nostr, you do" because the latter isn't clear that there is no company behind this at all... just that the possibly imainged company claims to not own you. So even though "protocol" is a technical word, I think it communicates a lot here in one word that non-technical people can just gloss over without being too confused.
"Your followers can find your content, regardless of where on nostr you post your notes" is informative, but doesn't quite explain how it is that nostr is censorship resistant, whereas something like "you can post to any servers you choose, there are already thousands, and you can dynamically move away from servers that censor you without affecting your followers" or something like that.... at least people that have tried Mastodon will understand that.
I don't think "highly customizable settings" will matter to these people, nor "built around a web of trust of who you follow."
Instead of very short bullet points like these, I think fewer but longer explanatory phrases would be more effective. These will be highly educated politically active older people, less interested in bullet points that are too short for them to get the picture, and possibly even the kind of people who would read proposed legislation which is ridiculously detailed and precise. So we should move to longer sentences with more precise statements I think.