I was under the impression that nostr wasn't a "platform." But rather a protocol? So your premise is wrong from the jump.
I'm arguing that PEOPLE must reject him and what he's doing. It's not about censoring him it's about rejecting him and his goals conceptually.
Does any man or machine have the ability to determine what the truth is?
So why should anyone be on board with someone claiming that they not only can but it is their duty to do so?
There is a distinct difference between what he is doing and someone going around posting even the most offensive or unpopular opinions.
I'm saying that there should be so many individuals rejecting him and the bot conceptually that he should logically come to the conclusion that taking the bot down is the right thing to do.
Because this isn't a platform the only way to do that is through consensus.
If you invite a hundred people to a party at your house and one person comes to the party and starts peeing on everything are you not going to make every effort you can to remove them or change their behavior? Is that censorship? "Oh well it's not words...." "oh well the peeing person is claiming that it's their way of expressing themselves artistically..." so is it censorship?
What he is doing is malicious and disruptive. It doesn't matter if you or he doesn't see it that way. That is the way it is. "Oh well just mute him and the bot and it goes away" no it doesn't. It still exists. He is still pissing on everything. It's just that I'm now blind to it. How does that fix the problem at its source? It doesn't.
His mentality regardless of how much he tries to disguise it with warnings or caveats is evil and should be rejected by everyone. It should be beaten out of him as acceptable behavior. And because of the nature of the protocol it would take individuals rejecting him and his methods.