It seems to me like you want to check initial post or this convo and see that nostr:npub1qqqqqqyz0la2jjl752yv8h7wgs3v098mh9nztd4nr6gynaef6uqqt0n47m is against providing users with freedoms to block, mute, ban, moderate etc
Discussion
You are making shit up all the time so maybe shut the fuck up? I didn’t say I was against any of that.
I don’t do this often but… fuck you
“But when I do, I do it with style”
I’ll just leave it here and consider that the problem is in my understanding of english. Sorry, wasn’t going to hurt your feelings 
You already have tools to mute others FOR YOURSELF depending on the client you are using. If you wanna call that a freedom then sure, you have the freedom to dig a hole for your head already. I am not against you or anyone from doing that. In fact, I encourage it because nobody is entitled to your attention.
Having the freedom to ban others to prevent them from posting on Nostr because you disagree with them is NOT a basic freedom, that’s a privilege. The problem is not me understanding English, it’s you twisting words in a hope to gain some moral high ground or cause some reaction on the reader. For that you are an asshole.
You aren’t fooling anyone with your hypothetical scenarios. You are not fighting any real battle by restricting others speech about a topic you dislike. The actual battle is being waged by those that have actual power, with weapons and the willingness to stop others with unrelenting force.
So if you wanna do something meaningful go out there and do something instead with your own meat suit.
I still don’t see what you are debating against since I’ve asked you a core question to this and you hwve refused to answer.
But I can do it again. Do you want to build nostr to be worldwide social network for everyone or do you want it to be another niche tool for “free speech absolutists”?
I’ll answer for free when you build the LLM with unlimited capacity, otherwise send me 5000 sats and I’ll answer your question.
Sent
First I reject your ridiculous question as answering it directly implies I agree with you that Nostr’s utility is minimized which just isn’t true. I’ll instead educate you on how Nostr works.
Nostr is not a social network but a protocol on top of which social networks (domains/spaces where speech can take place) can be built. The implication of this is that you can indeed build your own version in which you can restrict other people’s speech if you wish.
NIP-72 allows for Moderated Communities to be built on top of Nostr, in which spaces can be created and restricted to a moderators content. The moderator you are subject to approves every post you make to that community. This is great for Reddit like communities that focus on a specific topic and have rules on the content that can be shared. Assuming your posts are rejected (or you get outright banned) from a community, that ban does not extend automatically to other communities unless all moderators agree on silencing you.
The identity function of Nostr makes it so that you can reuse the same identity across all of you wish (but you don’t have to) but you don’t have to.
But you can’t ban an identity from the entirety of Nostr, it’s not technically feasible. The identity layer of Nostr is completely decentralized and there’s no authority granting access (or denying it). If you run a relay you can indeed control the pubkeys that can post to your own relay (after all it’s yours) but you can’t demand others to do the same.
This is unlike the original NIP-01 which introduces event kind 1, allowing for a Twitter-like social network or public forum to be built on top of Nostr. Kind 1 posts are 100% public and as long as they adhere to the schema specified in the protocol they will be accepted and relayed regardless of their content. This public forum might be too much for some or at times and that is understandable so there are tools like muting someone from your view… but being here is a choice and nobody is forced to use this. What NIP-01 does not give anyone is absolute power to silence the speech of others: everyone is treated equally.
That’s the best freedom anyone can hope for.
Hope that helps.
Thanks for very detailed explanation, but I still don’t see the answer to my simple question. I can rephrase: “do you want the majority of population to use nostr or do you only want people with the same vision as yours?”
Is this a question you refuse to answer?
In case you want to answer, I can follow it up with next question to make it clear why I’m asking: “if it happens you want everyone to use nostr, then do you want to adapt nostr to their needs or make them change their world views to embrace new nostreality?”
And lastly, if you want to also answer this one too and you are also realist as I am and don’t believe that you can change minds of billions of people then the question is “how we all build tools for others to build their own social networks with bans and whores in order to attract billions of people and keep those networks interoperability?”
P.S. it doesn’t matter at all how everyone understands “what nostr is”: is it a new protocol, a protocol over websockets, http or tcp, does it include nips other than nip1… the ONLY thing matters - is what community WANTS it to be and in what direction it builds it.
As an example, see “bitcoin”, “ethereum”
and “cryptocurrency” — definitions which often times used interchangeably and there are a lot of debates on what is what. But the communities visions are what actually make them different. Ver/Write also believed their definitions of bitcoin were true at sole point. Doesn’t matter at all. Community and vision. What is your vision?
