Frankly, the word "censorship" makes me less willing to engage in a conversation about this feature. This is not censorship.
If you enable your family and friends with Nostr accounts, wouldn't you want to protect them from the bad actors out there in such a way that they don't fall for scams or see dick pics everywhere?
For me, that's not censorship. Group protection was why this feature was first established. It's a decentralized way to create trust groups and help people protect each other against outsiders.
Can the feature be better? Definitely. Should it use something else than the generally follow list to declare trust? Probably. But that was all we had until a few weeks ago when we implemented Lists into Amethyst. As we move forward, we will have more opportunities to develop a hierarchical web of trust where people can more accurately point to the folks they trust to help them navigate each part of the ecosystem.
I get what you mean, but the issue here is that there are multiple people who I would not have blocked, did not block, and don't concent to blocking that were blocked for me because of your filters I was unaware that it even happened, and I never interacted with them. That is an issue, and from my perspective that is censorship whether or not that was your intention I don't disagree with any of the point you've raised, nor do I expect perfection or a system without flaws. It's a very complex topic, but the reality is that we are looking at a slippery slope similar to past social media experiences, and several people have already been slid down it.
So until we find a way to refine a web of trust/distrust, I want to opt-out of anyone adding someone to my unlock list. I'm a big boy, I can choose for myself.
Thread collapsed
not censorship, agreed. there are actually only two valid forms of censorship: self censorship and turning your back to something. I guess what youβre saying is the latter.
Thread collapsed
