Unless they held majority of the protocol traffic.
That's why Google has so much power. If they want something to vanish from the internet they can just filter it out from their search results.
Same applies to btc and nostr.
If for ex. Amethyst and Damus would agree to filter out certain event types or event payloads those notes would be wiped out for majority of the users.
That's why community needs and should react on attempts of censorship.
For open systems, I disagree.
In an open system, If they maintain a majority of protocol traffic then it's a market decision. Which of course means I'm not against a community backlash. A backlash or boycott is an important check and balance in a free market. Optionality *is* what makes the protocol censorship resistant.
I just want to impress on people that the drama that's happening is proof positive that the open design of the protocol is working *perfectly*. None of what's happening should call the censorship resistance of the protocol(s) into question. They aren't "attacks on the protocol". They are entirely predictable and exactly what the protocols were designed to handle.
They are as much attacks on the protocol(s) as the pavement is an attack on an automobile.
