I made an OpenSats application proposing integrating WebTorrent with lightning network and Nostr through a special client for streamers.
Haven't heard from OpenSats since January, I guess they weren't interested.
Jimmy is not a Nostr-only guy, unfortunately.
The ecosystem is still young. Early phase.
I can understand people waiting until it gets more mature.
As I see it this will lead to a scenario where there are two classes of Nostr, one with censorship enabled and the "free-speech clients".
Much like KYC BTC and non-KYC BTC, and eventually they will break compatibility.
This already happened to the Fediverse and it's why it failed.
The client should obey the will of its user, in a spirit of true decentralization.
He is embedding centralized censorship in the clients.
Wrong.
Global is global, it is meant to be that way.
Whatever you do to it in order to "tune it" makes it something else.
You are indeed lying to the user if you call it "global".
Put a warning on it if you wish, but don't take it away, it's up to the user to see it or not.
Sad to see that you agree with the subversion of Nostr.
This has been, by far, one of the most ratio'd notes I've ever seen on Nostr.
The lack of "concern with protecting thoughts deemed wrong" is the key part here, as it reveals the intention to unprotect notes ("thoughts") according to parameters established by an authoritative minority.
Sounds to me like the people crying "tyranny" are the ones trying to create their own little tyranny here on Nostr.
Could be language barrier, but "not just a social media" is not the same as saying "a social media not just for".
However the spirit of the note was very clear, and closer to your original interpretation.
Especially the part that says "your conservative bullshit thoughts are the last thing".
Shameful.
No, that's the point, it can't be shut down.
Remember, there's always Tor to access it.
"Nobody has the obligation to display your content in their clients"?
The client has the obligation to do what the user wants it to do, not what its dev finds appropriate.
You are advocating for censorship, you want to "resist tyranny" by imposing your own tyranny.
That's not how this works.
He is advocating for censorship on client code.
There aren't two ways of understanding what he said, the context makes it very clear.
He is saying that clients should be capable of censoring "unacceptable" (according to whom?) content. He didn't say "the user by configuring the client" or something of the kind, he said "the client" (i.e. the client's developer).
This has already been tried by some fediverse clients that used to come with predefined blacklists in their code.
Such practice is in direct opposition to Nostr's philosophy.
If he's not confused, then he's openly trying to destroy Nostr.
I understand the fear for "dead internet theory" on Nostr, it killed Twitter, in part.
But I fear "nanny admin dictatorship" on Nostr more, because in my opinion that was the real responsible for Twitter's death.
If they don't pass the Turing test, what is the point of having them in the first place?
If they pass, what is the problem with having them?
I see you motivated by fear.
1. Dumb relays (and nothing else).
2. Smart clients (that obey the user, not its creator).
This confused person doesn't understand what Nostr is about.
Especially the "clients" part.
Operating a spam network has a cost too. The incentive to run spam software is making money out of it. Annoying spam does not sell, and non-annoying "spam" is really spam? or just advertising?, which we're not entirely against.
Besides, this problem you're describing already exists on Telegram, for example. But people keep using Telegram because the benefits outweigh the downsides.
"Trollbots" do not have an economic incentive, and ignoring them effectively makes them pointless.
Also economic incentives work both ways. Their principles work on the side of the "victim" too.
"Trollbots" might become an issue, not for regular people, but for "influencers" mainly, but "influencers" already have an incentive to keep their feed clean - they can make money with it (well, some may prefer just the ego boosts, to the same effect).
In which case, they can simply run an AI bot that they pay for a few sats to clean their feed for them in real time.
As you can see these problems you're pointing out are all self-regulated.