These are ideas that are worth talking about. I’ve said this before elsewhere and I’ll keep saying it. The collective part is using a web of trust model. Individually, we can report notes and users. Where we can benefit collectively is if clients inform you who in your list of users you follow have reported them, mute them, follow them, like them, zap them, etc. The client should present the information without any automated algorithms unless the user opts in. The user can choose if they want to hide them, or enable a setting or moderation algorithm by their own choice to automatically hide them. This is the only way it works. Users need to have full freedom to choose.

Relay operators can individually decide if they want to delete or block them entirely, and it’s up to the users to decide if they want to connect to such a relay with such policies. If not, they can stop using it. And it’s up to the State to decide if and how they want to enforce the law upon that relay.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Seu início do texto foi lindo. Cagou só no final. Se colocar o estado envolvido, logo estaremos reportando todos os conteúdos para o estado. E consequentemente, estaremos entregando nossa liberdade de expressão.

I’m not saying we should rely on the State to censor. I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that is something that will eventually happen, unfortunately. It’s up to individual user choice and web of trust models first and foremost to determine how and what we want to see content.

Well said. And though State censorship seems inevitable, it should be fought fiercely.

É inevitável tirarmos as mãos do estado. Nisso eu concordo. E sim, o indivíduo deve medir suas notas publicadas e recebidas.