Replying to Avatar hh

Moderation should be performed at the user level. Relays should be simply that, relays. As dumb as possible. Give users the tools to set as many filters as they can possibly want, so they are the ones responsible for what they see.

If we start to have relay owners making decisions like blocking whole other relays instead of users, we can't speak of a network and we're back in the silo citadel model ruled by petty tyrants. nostr:note1rw7rzq6c7f6x9r59677xp9c5p8ueu22vrcavfnsqkyrzjf8e04jq8vgmx0
70
notrump 2y ago

Both clients and relays have moderation roles to perform as long as you can select which ones, and they provide transparency.

#devstr #devstrClients #devstrRelays https://devstr.org

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

f6
devstr search bot 2y ago

#[0]

Avatar
hh 2y ago

No.

In the end obviously devs will do whatever they want, and users like me who left social media because we don't believe that YOU know better than I do what content I should see, will leave again.

That's totally fine of course. I don't need social media to live, centralized or (fakely) decentralized.

I do believe though that censoring Nostr as you propose is even worse than what is going on with Twitter. An example of failed "illustrated tyranny" is Mastodon, where people went from dealing with one tyrant to dealing with tens of them in each server.