I think this is very well thought through. I would put more emphasis on trust lists than nomenclature, since the former protects users, and the latter protects service prividers, but I think you're right that both are needed.
Some of the people who've seen what #[0] & I have been proposing in "NIP-69" seem to think the objective is censorship. So to day I sat down and wrote out the bigger "vision" of where I'd like to see content moderation go on Nostr. Feel free to give it a read:
https://s3x.social/nostr-content-moderation
Just realize it's a first draft and needs work. But the point I hope I get across is that I want to see something that's individual and "bottom up". To me censorship is always top down since at the core of censorship is some authority flexing their power and enforcing their idea of what's good and bad - overriding your idea of good and bad.
Instead I want to see a cacophony of voices with individuals choosing which voices in that chaos they want to listen to for filtering their feeds. (Or they could choose to listen to none and see it all.)
But systems have to be put in place to make that a reality. It won't happen by accident.
And yes, the government will always force a certain level of censorship on us. But there are ways around that. For example our relay can't have anything related to escorting on it thanks to FOSTA/SESTA (horrible law), but people who need to do posts related to escorting could use #[1]'s relay. And that's the whole point with Nostr - it's censorship-resistant, not censorship-proof. Nothing is censorship-proof…
Discussion
No replies yet.