I don’t buy the claims that Damus or Nostr are not censorship resistant.

Damus could, if it wanted to, work on a different platform.

Apple having the ability to kick you out of app store is not the same as not being censorship resistant. It simply means you don’t have access to one important marketing channel.

It sucks not being able to show where people search, but that’s not the same as being totally censored.

Nostr is even more resilient. Yes, anything can be silenced if there’s a coordinated effort, but that’s not what censorship-resistant means. It’s just not censorship-proof.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

We have censorship resistance, because we have like 50 different clients that one can choose from.

And there’s nothing stopping any one client going to another platform with additional effort.

Not related to censorship, per se, but one thing that’s crazy to me is how much of a monopoly there is in the mobile phone OS market- it’s literally just two systems realistically. A lot do their standards seem reasonable- for quality and safety- but the stuff with preventing people from earning their money without the App Stores taking a cut is kind of insane. And it’s all because the native apps are only moderately more convenient than a progressive web app on one’s Home Screen.

I agree. There are levels of resistance.

Some protocols with high censorship resistance detect and route around censorship, blind the end nodes involved, hide communications steganographically, etc... nostr doesn't do any of that.

But beyond being decentralized, it is organized to rapidly and easily switch providers (relays), on every note you post if you want, unlike older decentralized protocols like email or UUCP, along with expected redundancy of posting.

So I'd call it fully distributed and somewhat censorship resistant.

Not being able to distribute a client through a walled garden isn't a fault - no client could possibly do that without the walled garden's approval.