So, please publish your list of forbidden things. So I know what I can and can not think or write. I’ll wait. Otherwise I might offend someone.

Since you are replying to a conversation about bluesky… this seems like a fair approximation of how this term is used in that community, and this actual abuse of the term is far more scary to me than anything I’ve ever seen on nostr or any possible future. When someone actually is being taken to the gulag no one’s gonna care because of the abusive over use of this term, and it increasingly feels like the people who plan to drag me there are the ones actively abusing and overusing this term. So please excuse me when I inquire as to exactly what and who you are referring too.

nostr:note1l23yw6g62pacra04qq9t5jqejsnyhmyy3xc3tv8pa2s26et9fhfsa994cp

If you can block nazism

you can block anything from journalists to human right activist.

Relay wise you can have relays that filter content. That applies more to you

Freedom of speech should not be limited because we dont like a certain type of it

My view always has been

let the racist people show themself being racist.

People being bad is a great thing to point what society deems bad pushing them in the shadows does not solve anything.

I’m happy with whatever as long as the user gets to choose the level of moderation they want for themselves.

I see a couple of problems in those points you make.

1) Human speech is messy and moral standards shift over time, over culture, and geography. Centralized content moderation, especially when involves grey areas, is an untreatable problem. You would necessarily need to pasteurize the entire humanity into a homogenous group to apply the same rules to everyone (forget about the right of Amazon tribes to live their lives in this case)

2) There always be a force for the existence of the State, because there always exist people that are entitled enough to think they have a solution for humanity's issues.

3) The next-door idea from centralized content moderation is to abolish private communication and End-to-End encryption. If we collectively think that there is no place on this Earth for X and Y, maybe there are no hard boundaries to where you can go to accomplish that pursuit.

4) The whole point about Nostr is that it's a censor-resistant protocol (or maybe nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 can correct me in that regard). We already knew that, at some point, the State would try to censor it, as they did with Bitcoin. We are removing the State's power of dictates what people have the right to say and we are not sorry about that.

5) Although I subscribe to the "free speech absolutism" ideal, I do think that we are going to avoid the amplification of most of the hate/discussing content in a decentralized way.

When I was a child, I think there were some people in the MidWest who literally put on Nazi uniforms and had a parade. National news picked it up. As far as I can tell, everybody just laughed at them. Exposure made them less attractive, not more. Additionally, most of us knew they were socialists.

Now everybody is a Nazi. The White Nationalist movement is now more diverse the NAACP. Because this is word magic being employed by corrupt governments.

We can tell whether or not a policy is good or not without these words. We can see whether on not someone on nostr is worth paying attention to without these words.

When Richard Spencer started doing stuff, he'd regularly be stopped from giving speeches at colleges. It actually seemed like he might have something good to say. But eventually he started being able to say stuff, and exposed himself as an idiot.

Your impulse to ban runs contrary to your stated desires.

These are ideas that are worth talking about. I’ve said this before elsewhere and I’ll keep saying it. The collective part is using a web of trust model. Individually, we can report notes and users. Where we can benefit collectively is if clients inform you who in your list of users you follow have reported them, mute them, follow them, like them, zap them, etc. The client should present the information without any automated algorithms unless the user opts in. The user can choose if they want to hide them, or enable a setting or moderation algorithm by their own choice to automatically hide them. This is the only way it works. Users need to have full freedom to choose.

Relay operators can individually decide if they want to delete or block them entirely, and it’s up to the users to decide if they want to connect to such a relay with such policies. If not, they can stop using it. And it’s up to the State to decide if and how they want to enforce the law upon that relay.

Você está se referindo a censurar ideias e isso eu já acho um crime. Sou libertário e vejo que ideias são como papeis. Você faz delas o que quiser, rasga, cola, rabisca. Etc. Sim, devemos ter um certo parâmetro nos relay para reportar com um aviso na postagem do indivíduo, que aquele conteúdo fere leis locais. Porém! Se colocarmos toda a lei local. Logo, estaremos reportando tudo para o estado.

you want to stop me from influencing children to commit mass shootings ??