The correct title is "this is how we censor ideas that we don't like and Foss money, because communism must prevail"
Discussion
Half the arguments listed in the infographic are just examples of ways participants are able to resist being fed content they don't want to see. If most people don't want to hear your ideas because they disagree with them and find them unethical, what right do you have to force them to view that content?
That's so gay, so you defend censorship in order of people to not get offended? If some user gets offended on mastodon by something he or she contact some moderator which has the power to block or remove content. How can one defend that? Go use mastodon and get the fuck out of nostr if you don't like it here. If you chose to continue you will be around real people that like to debate and are not hiding behind some faggot moderator.
Yeah, I'm not surprised the guy still using gay as an insult lacks reading comprehension. It's not censorship to say "I personally don't want to see this content". Some moderators take it too far and censor things, but the thriving communities are those which are moderated in line with the community's desires. For the rest, people are free to go somewhere else if they don't like it. So given this is all predicated on moderators having the support of the community, I ask again, what right do you have to FORCE them to view content they've agreed they don't want to see?
AFAIK single-user instances are the best in terms of moderation for ActivityPub, if you want to join a Mastodon instance then that's your choice on whether you like or dislike the clique of moderators and their policies, and how transparently they're modified/enforced.
Mastodon, nostr, etc are like any interconnected network – censorship is seen as damage and routed around. The real big benefit nostr has is that identities aren't tied to nodes, so a node censoring any of their users doesn't also censor them from talking to other users/nodes.