Subnostr

I don't expect Nostr to fix anything. I see it as an enabling technology.

When the state acts against the will and the best interests of the people, do we have democracy?

I do wish for Nostr to, maybe not solve, but at least address other issues, primarily corporate censorship.

Companies often censor content which is absolutely legal. It's also legal (and one could argue moral) to censor content, since they own the servers, but we have the right to reject their role and power as middlemen and Nostr can address that.

Government censorship and violation of basic civil rights (such as the non-retroactivity of laws) isn't a technical problem, it's a political problem which can't really be solved by just nerding hard enough.

> When the state acts against the will and the best interests of the people, do we have democracy?

In some cases yes, but not if it violates fundamental human rights.

Democracy isn't about having perfect laws, or maybe even good laws, it's about empowering the people (not just the majority of them, all of them).

Fundamental human rights such as democracy, the right not be prosecuted for what wasn't illegal at the time of the act and the right to influence political decisions are all that democracy is. There is nothing more and nothing less to democracy than that.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Matt Finlay 5d ago

Rejection of centralised platforms; their seemingly arbitrary or idealogy-based controls and over-exploitation of users.

That's why I've found my way to Nostr.

Valentino Giudice 5d ago

The two reasons are aligned.

People giving up power to corporations, and allowing them the role of filtering speech, isn't illegal and isn't strictly speaking a political problem, but it does erode democracy.

It doesn't mean, morally, that centralized platforms *ought* to be neutral and have permissive policies (although some choose to do so). You can make the argument none owes anyone the tool to exercise fundamental rights, so long as they aren't actively infringing them without their consent.

However, it'd be nice, and healthy for democracy, if people did have a tool to exercise their fundamental human right to freedom of speech, which is neutral and not subject to the will of the owners of corporations or capitalistic interests.

That's Nostr.

It doesn't remove governmental censorship, but it does a lot of good to freedom of speech and can be a tool for democracy.

Matt Finlay 5d ago

The legality of any new legislation needs to be challenged in court.

Unfortunately that can take many years and destroy many lives in the meantime. The state often uses "the process" as the punishment and will drop charges at the final moment to ensure it there is no successful challenge.

Matt Finlay 5d ago

Correction to last sentence:

The state often uses "the process" as the punishment and will drop charges at the final moment, ensuring there is no successful challenge.

I cannot assume motive.

Sim Cardashian 5d ago

They punish you with the process

Valentino Giudice 5d ago

Courts are part of the government.

They enforce laws made by the legislator, they are made of people picked according to the law, they are the mouth of the law.

Many laws which infringed upon human rights have been enforced by courts, sometimes correctly so (in the lack of higher laws preventing such violations).

A law can be morally illegitimate but legally valid. It must be challenged politically.