Because they say everything has to stay completely unfiltered and public, otherwise it's censorship because it reduces their reach.
Discussion
Then they can stay transparent. I don't want to say everything to everyone all the time. And group DMs aren't even a thing. Lame.
I think they misinterpret the fact that we haven't privatized some of the data to mean that we can't do it, so they're all in shock, but like duh.
Freedom to make choices is the right path
I wish they would just integrate DMs and private chats from SimpleX.
I have no clue how hard that would be.
True.
Thinking aloud for this thread:
I think this topic will always be contested. Some people will want privacy, others transparency. I guess we will always have to meet in the middle. I err more to the transparency side. If single body/council decides how much reach a note gets, I would probably point a finger an claim censorship, I think I have in the past. Doesn't mean I want to take away their right to control THEIR platform. An example might be a popular client that curates feeds for users, especially if they make it difficult to disable those filters.
As far as the protocol is concerned, I mean its just a websocket, a database, and some keys, so we can do whatever TF we want with it.
There's a difference between the protocol being transparent to the clients reading notes and other stuff transmitted by relays and people being able to have the choice of how and to whom their notes and other stuff are transmitted.
The openness and flexibility of the protocol is the appeal to me. I can't code and don't really want to, so I'm relying on others to not be douchebags and ruin a good thing. That's kinda bad, but, it can form a decent community, if it is allowed to flourish.