Discussion
This isn't Twitter, relays don't have to be for profit.
Allowing everything except for illegal content, spam and content which abuses the technical functionality of the relay (such as, for example, hosting images if only text is allowed) is a good policy.
No reason to ban "hate speech" where it's legal.
They should be carriers of information, relay as heavily as legally possible on safe harbor provisions, without even scanning for illegal content when it's not mandatory and let users decide what they want to see.
So relays should allow everything except for illegal content without even scanning fir illegal content you say?
Also cloud providers and ISPs must be forced to allow relays hosting for free right?
> So relays should allow everything except for illegal content without even scanning fir illegal content you say?
That depends on the law. The law isn't the same everywhere.
The law of at least some jurisdictions does not require scanning for illegal content, at least not all kinds of illegal content, but this can be as a result of safe harbor provisions, which hosting companies can benefit from only if they comply with some conditions.
Relay operators should know what the law is, in those jurisdictions they must obey to, and act accordingly, in whatever legal way is the most beneficial to them, while also requiring the least effort. I can't go in the specifics because neither of us has mentioned a specific jurisdiction, so it will not always be the same.
If there is no legal requirement to scan content, then why would they do so?
> Also cloud providers and ISPs must be forced to allow relays hosting for free right?
Who in the actual fuck is suggesting this? Really, who are you replying to? Where have I suggested anyone be forced to do anything?
Don't make shit up and attribute it to other people online. Read, understand, then write.
You contradict yourself. I suggest you to take your advice :)
Again, I’ll try to put it simpler using your words. There is not a single jurisdiction without at least ANY restriction => EVERY operator MUST scan for illegal content unless they are uncatchable Joe. So your first argument doesn’t hold.
Also, relays MUST be for profit (if we are not talking about nostr in its today form no one uses just like right now) - because one has to pay for hosting and operation. So your second argument doesn’t hold.
Its great to have hopium at early stage project, but it has to be healthy balanced anyway
monetizing this network will make it more popular while still giving the user the ability to decide what relays they want to sub to. don't be a luddite.
I am, indeed, not against the employment of any new kind of technology.
it was more about creating incentives to attract the "slow" masses, busy with the daily hustle and bustle of surviving and working.
"hey guys come be useful over here and apply your skills in a new way, try not to be stupid about it"
sex sells, so does violence. if you want less people being stupid you'll have to wait till the money is fixed and more people can survive longer on less.
also, the reason sex and violence (and their derivatives such as love/romance righteous indignation/gore) sell is because it appeals to our biology, it literally stimulates chemicals in our body.
There's some nuance that most of this article won't apply to nostr*
*but it will apply to individual relays in individual countries.
So CSAM will likely be pretty universal (except for relays that host on Tor.....)
DMCA would apply to a lot of relays....just not for example, a Chinese relay
Individual relays would ban individual countries, but some relays would be IN those countries
but all content from all relays show in the same feed. So what's the net effect for the user who wants to see what they want to see?
We call this "jurisdictional arbitrage" (except for the Tor example)