I'll copy-paste my draft here as well:
--8<---
To start, I would like to emphasize that Nostr and ActivityPub are commendable for their efforts in addressing the problems encountered by traditional centralized social media platforms.
* Nostr employs hash-based identification for users, while ActivityPub utilizes a more conventional user account system. ActivityPub user accounts are based on domain names, which can be controlled by third-party entities. Nostr's hash-based identification system is more decentralized, as it does not rely on domain names controlled by outside parties.
* Migrating to a different Mastodon server can be challenging as your username is tied to the domain name of the current Mastodon instance. However, this is not a problem in Nostr as users are identified using a unique hash.
* The Nostr protocol is easier to implement than the ActivityPub protocol, and appears more extensible. What I like about Nostr is what I like about RSS: it's simple and extensible.
* ActivityPub protocal has some artchitectural challenges; when you post a link to a site, that sites gets hammered with requests. (Any other architectural challenges?)
Depending on your views on censorship, the following could be good or bad:
* In ActivityPub, Mastodon server owners have the power to ban users. In Nostr, users can't be banned. Conversely, in Nostr, users cannot be banned, but either Nostr clients or Nostr relays may opt to block specific users or messages. This is a distinct approach compared to a network-wide ban.
--8<---
Dries
npub176…j5asu
2023-02-13 20:51:28
in reply to nevent1q…a5ey
Author Public Key
npub176xpl3dl0agjt7vjeccw6v5grlx8f9mhc75aazwvvqfjvq5al8uszj5asuPublished at
2023-02-13 20:51:28Event JSON
{
"id": "940abdb1415ada65655d4c28c5bc2fa5b20653cbe82ec1c8fd261af64cfd2d1b",
"pubkey": "f68c1fc5bf7f5125f992ce30ed32881fcc749777c7a9de89cc601326029df9f9",
"created_at": 1676321488,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8b9f66237e781ee854ab6c1543b75a5e82f8b4649667e57954f275284cb3783d"
],
[
"p",
"82341f882b6eabcd2ba7f1ef90aad961cf074af15b9ef44a09f9d2a8fbfbe6a2"
],
[
"p",
"32e1827635450ebb3c5a7d12c1f8e7b2b514439ac10a67eef3d9fd9c5c68e245"
]
],
"content": "I'll copy-paste my draft here as well:\n\n--8\u003c---\n\nTo start, I would like to emphasize that Nostr and ActivityPub are commendable for their efforts in addressing the problems encountered by traditional centralized social media platforms.\n\n* Nostr employs hash-based identification for users, while ActivityPub utilizes a more conventional user account system. ActivityPub user accounts are based on domain names, which can be controlled by third-party entities. Nostr's hash-based identification system is more decentralized, as it does not rely on domain names controlled by outside parties.\n\n* Migrating to a different Mastodon server can be challenging as your username is tied to the domain name of the current Mastodon instance. However, this is not a problem in Nostr as users are identified using a unique hash. \n\n* The Nostr protocol is easier to implement than the ActivityPub protocol, and appears more extensible. What I like about Nostr is what I like about RSS: it's simple and extensible.\n\n* ActivityPub protocal has some artchitectural challenges; when you post a link to a site, that sites gets hammered with requests. (Any other architectural challenges?)\n\nDepending on your views on censorship, the following could be good or bad:\n\n* In ActivityPub, Mastodon server owners have the power to ban users. In Nostr, users can't be banned. Conversely, in Nostr, users cannot be banned, but either Nostr clients or Nostr relays may opt to block specific users or messages. This is a distinct approach compared to a network-wide ban.\n\n--8\u003c---",
"sig": "9dae1b4f4ca88849cf4aa57c84727ea1f421b2c63a9e025c207fa128ce07a04c28c8778e18b62254e34250ca06c74750daae7daf7f64eb8a679ab9fb6646bd20"
}