yeah, the idea is that if someone is unliked by the whole group they all end up muting this asshat

and if it's something that only bugs a minority, they leave, stop subscribing to the chat of that group

the role of the relay owner (and there can be many) is to control access at the edge of that process, so, in theory, you can have like 2 relays joined and many overlapping clients passing messages back and forth between users connected to each side

but it could happen that on one relay, you have faction A, and another relay, faction B and they can thus peacefully decide to be separated if the relay owner is good about this and realises that it's best for everyone to let the cult drones have their #hashtag on one side and the rest of us on the other, you see what i mean?

this is a dynamic process and this is why ... and it makes me sad that i have to harp on about this but really, the modern kids have been brainwashed by modern social apps to have this belief that moderation is some magic wand that just happens and they don't realise it's done for the benefit of advertisers and spook agencies involved in mass manipulation campaigns

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

i don't expect this to be grasped instantly by people, but it's also going to take me a little time to build it out, and my requirement that the async features not depend on relay event storage is part of this, because other than controlling the ability to send messages into the relay i don't want the relay owner to have any more control, i want the channels that people create to otherwise be owned by the people who are in them, by association, by the name of the thing

proprietary association of names with group membership just results in a proliferation of social islands, i want to help promote the idea of those boundaries being permeable