Nostr Web Client

Here's where I think things cross from reasonable into unreasonable:

Those who post content they know some people may not want to see ought to be able to self-censorship such that those who don't want to see their content won't see it, but those who do want to see it will.

Likewise, if someone is not self-censoring, then each individual user ought to be able to opt out of seeing their posts by blocking them.

However, under no circumstances should one user, who did not post the content, be able to affect whether or not other users see that content, unless those users specifically agreed to allow that user to curate what shows up in their feed.

graycat 2y ago

I partly agree. If someone operates a public relay, I would like him to have a liberal attitude about the notes he permits. However, Nostr’s censorship-resistance isn’t dependent on every public relay operator doing that; it comes from users connecting to many relays. Also, while I would like relay operators to be very pro-speech, I don’t think that should extend to relaying spam.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

graycat 2y ago

I meant that as a reply to #[4]

Vitor Pamplona 2y ago

Wishful thinking. There are no incentives on public relays to be liberal or to even care about what you expect.

graycat 2y ago

Yes, I agree.

RealJohnDoe 2y ago

We agreed on the importance of decentralization for censorship resistance.

The same applies for so-called spam. I might call it something else. The point is that it must be at the sole discretion of the relay operator as to what is spam on their relay, and what to do about it. Including just doing nothing.

Users can mute or block it if they choose to do so. It's quick and easy. I do it all the time with my personal account. For example, post in a foreign language that I don't speak or understand are just spam for me.

Unless they've got some great pictures that I do understand lol..🙂