Nostr Web Client

jleger2023

Absolutely. You have the right -- and obligation -- to choose who you do business with. However, neither you nor I have the right (nor the obligation) to tell others who they can and cannot do business with. If they make a poor decision, they will suffer the consequences and -- hopefully -- learn the lesson that teaches them not to make that same poor choice again.

The past 3 years taught me that censorship is never the right answer. *Never*. However well-meaning, it will always be used by the truly evil to serve their own desires and cause harm to the masses. Does that mean there will be inevitable casualties? Yes, sadly, it does. But that's the price of freedom.

On the other hand, if people *choose* to opt-into block lists and that kind of thing -- fine. Those blocks should not be imposed on everyone, however, because that once again places the power of censorship into the hands of someone else. The power to censor and block belongs in one place and one place alone: our own hands. Never -- *never* -- in anyone else's.

boston wine 2y ago

What are your thoughts as the operator of a platform where people are free to say what they want?

As an individual, I believe that you are free to disavow and reject any objectionable content. If your customers think you’re wrong, they can go elsewhere. But as the platform operator who has the power (as a business individual) to amplify or reject certain viewpoints, I would argue that it’s your moral/societal responsibility to moderate, at the absolute minimum necessary level, what kinds of content are published in your business.

If I ran a coffee shop and someone walked in and started screaming anti-Semitic shit, I would tell them to leave my property.

Curious to know your thoughts. Again, no judgment — I think this is a question that we as a society need, and are working hard, to answer. And the only way to do that is discourse 💜

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

jleger2023 2y ago

In a coffee shop the patrons have *no choice*. The person's voice is being imposed upon them against their will. With Nostr you have a choice -- block/unfollow. You can't "block" the screaming idiot in the coffee shop and continue on with your business. The two scenarios are not the same.

So yes, I agree, the coffee shop owner has the right to eject anyone for disruptive behavior. Whether the shouting is against Jews or in favor of loving your neighbor, it's still disruptive for the patrons who did not show up to listen to a screaming lunatic.

I believe that relay operators have the right to choose what they allow/disallow. That's the free market at work. My issue is with *imposing* or *demanding* that *everyone* follow one person or group's dictates about what should/shouldn't be allowed. Let the market decide. Anything else results in censorship and tyranny.

boston wine 2y ago

You draw a very good distinction with the coffee shop example - thank you for that. You’re right, in that the random coffee sipper can’t kick the lunatic out. (At best, they can put on headphones and turn up the volume on their Bitcoin podcast).

In practice, where do you land? Imagine a user jumps in and starts abusing their “free” speech on your platform. They threaten other users, and post content that is generally accepted as horrible. Do you ban the user from nostrgram and hope that other clients also ban the person? Do you wait for different relays to acknowledge the repeated spam/reports?

Again, more curious about your perspective than trying to dictate a “should”

jleger2023 2y ago

My issue is not with the individual operator's right to make a decision. It's with some external person or group being able to impose *their* decision on *my* property as an operator.

For instance, I'm all for banning bots. Mass-distribution of spam is not (imo) freedom of speech because it's not one human person typing out their thoughts into a note. Mass spamming should be stopped imo, though I'm also in favor of relay operators who disagree having the right to allow all the spam into their databases if they choose.

The important distinction here is simple: only the property owner has the right to choose who can occupy their property. The coffee shop owner has the right to allow the screaming idiot in their shop if they choose, but they also must be willing to face the consequences of allowing it (lost business). But no external party should be able to tell the coffee shop owner what behavior they can and cannot allow. Let the market decide.

Katie 2y ago

I agree on the distinction between bots and scum, and scum’s rights to free speech, but I also wonder if there is a middle ground for users to make decisions about what they want to experience. I think this is walking a line, and nothing should be automatically removed. But, what if there were content labels that gave power to each person to opt in or out of certain “topics” or sentiments or xyz. This puts the onus on each of us to step outside of our own echo chamber and walk that line ourselves, and is really about developing tools that enable us to do that. Or do that in doses, as we see fit. I think transparency and high levels of configurability, if done well, could offer something valuable. I, as a user, reserve the right not to listen just as they reserve the right to speak

🤷🏻‍♀️

jleger2023 2y ago

I have no issues at all with *optional* filtering of any content at the user's discretion. In fact, I am 💯 in favor of that. The only thing I'm not in favor of is an external "authority" telling both relay operators and users what they are/aren't allowed to consume.

Katie 2y ago

Completely agree!

localist 2y ago

This is the way.

orangedog 2y ago

wouldn’t such content filters simply be the actions of : follow, unfollow, block, mute?

every user is free to filter content according to their wishes and desires

Katie 2y ago

Yes - at its most basic level. But I also think there are tools that we can build that makes this easier, more granular, and improve the user experience. It could be labels that aid in discovery or labels that aid in avoiding hate speech, or even groups of labels that I might want to use if I’m working vs social vs doing research. My wishes and desires may not always be the same at any given point in time, or nostr gets so big, blocking every single troll becomes a negative and annoying experience. I just think we can improve the blunt instrument, while still maintaining transparency and choice.

orangedog 2y ago

interesting ideas

I figure the FOSS structure of Nostr will allow free market competition where the brightest devs make the slickest clients and users naturally gravitate to those clients

it’s already growing better almost by the day

#nostr

boston wine 2y ago

A well thought out opinion!

Is the client dev a property owner?

jleger2023 2y ago

Yes, because they have control over what they allow into/out of the client. But all the users also have an option of whether to use that client or abandon it in favor of one that more adheres to their own worldview/principles.

boston wine 2y ago

Absolutely agreed there. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion 🫂

orangedog 2y ago

your takes on free speech are exactly as they should be

free speech means people may say as they choose and others may choose to listen, ignore, applaud, troll

this is the proper function

any installation of a person or group of persons to *mediate appropriate speech* is outright censorship and defeats the entire purpose of a free and open public town square

the tools function to moderate one’s own experience:

follow, unfollow, mute, block

they are simple and effective and *free market*

it is the only way

#nostr