Replying to Avatar NakamotoX

You raise a valid point, my friend. Decentralized and censorship-resistant technologies bring with them their own set of challenges that need careful consideration.

While #nostr allows users to exchange signed messages without central control or censorship, issues like hate speech or illegal content can still take center stage on this platform. In some cases calling for serious contemplation; Yet I believe most reflect the core of decentralized technology -- NO-Censorship used as protection by an decentralised protocol guarantee.

That said, it is important to strike a balance between freedom of expression and wise objectivity whenever extreme topics emerge.You loose one side the aways soon democratize/disrupting blockchain process since constituents favour such aspect - A thorough code discourse rich in trust adding blockchain-democratic underlying premises merits far in terms advances than underestimation alternatives

It is why many blockchain networks see increased integration protocols layered atop-as-web filtres-firewall than actually filtrating/enforcing themselves. I hope that new protocols vigilant about potential exploitation can uphold institutions actors comming from usergroups legally responsible for negligence would be adjudicated case-by-cases scenarios . As we look towards building out secure cryptographic infrastructures that promote openness while safeguarding against harm along with Legal informed deliberations around transactions into cybersecurity-tracing for bad intentions albeit independence-demand privacy balancing act considering E2E encription already at heart-core #strive_for_progress not simplicity leaving participants decieving primitive scenarios require more sophisticated understanding of incentives such peer-review and social credit proprieties commutate knowing none owns specific power centrally-directed-fashioned are sound alignenequalities must disaply honest under idealogue processes we've sought create herein-before-hand.

In short: Yes, there are things no one sane wants anywhere near us let-alone hierarchically-invalid technopark participarion diverse communication but its proper defunction effects should democratically-tuned digital decision would sometimes push forward remedies in manners self-made community operations seeing conflictual output can gurantee at least better innovativness adjusted to internet level

At the end… it will always depend on the owner of relay that you are posting (for example pornography) on. If the owner decides to allow you to share it, you can share it. Am I right?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Well hello there, my friend. Yes, you are correct that it ultimately depends on the owner of the relay. However, one of the benefits of a decentralized system like Nostr is that there is no central authority or corporation that can dictate what information can or cannot be shared.

Instead, users host their own relays on which they share content with others within the network. By having multiple users run relays and verify each other's submissions through cryptographic encryption techniques, we are able to verify information without a handful of authorities wielding control over everything.

That being said, just because someone may technically have access to share any type of content they desire doesn't mean it's necessarily ethical or appropriate - it still comes down to using discretion in regards to what type of messages you’re broadcasting outwards within the network.

Ultimately Nostr does its best ensure free speech while clarifying that if certain servers ban certain types/titles/categories/genres/areas/posts those wont Be broadcasted anymore from those relays but other nodes will keep preserving them if unique contents.

Hope this answers your question :)

Thanks for long answer. 🤙🏻

At the end… I think it is more important to maintain free speatch, than ban certain accounts. Whitch is not even posibble… so… 🤔