Could you please specify in which talk he mentioned that? Are we talking about the same rabble?
Discussion
It was during nostrica. I haven’t watched it myself yet but heard that second hand, one sec.
Ok apparently it’s around 5:07:00.
The video of my talk is online, you’re welcome to watch and make your own judgement.
What I’m advocating for is relays being aware that when they host data they’ve got some legal and moral responsibility. That free speech doesn’t mean I have to listen to you. And lastly that it is possible to say things that silence others.
We need to find ways to manage ourselves without relying on either corporations or the government deciding the rules. But governments exist and there is content which is a crime to have on your devices. Post a nazi symbol and it is illegal for users in Germany to download or view it. Child porn is ilegal almost everywhere. Let’s not have a system that endangers all users legally.
The last bit which could be considered pro-censorship is pointing out that apple and google have total control of mobile operating system. They insist on content reporting and removal. They don’t care that the system is decentralized. So if we want mobile users of nostr we could go web only or comply with AppStore rules.
Don’t like those rules? Build from source, use mobile web, or nostr on the desktop. Or spend many billions building a new mobile OS.
Don’t like blocklists? Or hiding some things. Don’t do it. But once we host content and have to block or remove spam then we have to decide what is or isn’t spam and there is always a grey area. So a judgement call must me made.
If you don’t want it to work like that then try secure scuttlebutt which is inmutable. I build an open source app planetary.social, it is technically impossible to delete or censor with it.
How does my speech silence someone else’s? Also, a swastika isn’t illegal on its own, so you’re misinformed.
The only moral duty relay operators have is to not interfere with peoples fundamental right to free speech.
He did talk about it in a weird way in the short section I listened to. But it wasn’t enough for me to think he was for censorship per se, maybe like tools to avoid things you don’t like is more accurate.
'silencing speech' makes me think hmm that is open to hell of a lot of interpretation, i can see how this might cause suspicion.