Nostr Web Client

s3x_jay

667205eb525aa4a794859b2bd2bdd16e64ff57fd600880500fc53cdbf476439e

I'm the guy behind https://s3x.social and a bunch of other sites. For ~15 years I've focused on building & running #gay sites. I'm also one of the Community Ambassadors at https://XBiz.net - the #porn industry's leading B2B discussion forum. #LGBT #NYC #Harlem

Now you're just trolling lol

Just pointing out inconvenient truths.

Both the LGBTQ community and the porn industry happen to be under attack by evangelical/fundamentalist Christians. Having been an evangelical myself in the past I see things pretty clearly.

This is highly personal for me on many levels.

I refuse to adopt your frame. You refuse to engage rationally with my argument. This is just more evidence that leftists' only weapons are shame and guilt, the same ones deployed by the term in question.

Jesus was a leftist. Read your bible!

Cost of not opening a lightning channel. Strike has the lowest fee's from what I hear.

I’m a newb to all things crypto. Lightning channels sound complicated even though I have a server I could run one on. Can you point me to an explanation of an easy solution?

I'd moderate it because I'm the dictator of my server. The above example is inappropriate, distasteful, politically counter-productive, and off-topic, but I refuse to use the term "hate speech".

The term "inappropriate" would be a better alternative, since it is context-dependent, while the term "hate speech" is absolute. Calling something "inappropriate" is just, like, your opinion man. Calling something "hate speech" is a moral judgment.

Just because examples exist that illustrate the intent of a term doesn't make the term's intent match its definition. "Some derogatory speech is motivated by hate" does not imply that "all derogatory speech is motivated by hate", that's basic logic.

Pastors in Canada and the UK have been arrested for hate speech just for preaching a sermon, from the Bible, in their own church when their intent is clearly not to harass, terrorize, or threaten, but to speak a religious truth.

Because "hate speech" is over-broad, it lends itself to selective enforcement. It's an arbitrary term designed to discredit certain groups based on the interests of the ones making the designation. If you lose freedom of speech through the mechanism of "hate speech", you lose freedom of religion.

Maybe this is too cynical for someone who believes in the essential goodness of people. But consider that few people are convinced by violent speech; it's off-putting. Subtly deceptive terms like "hate speech" are adopted much more easily by many more people, and therefore do more damage. Let the nazis rage, I'm much more worried well-intentioned socialists are going to steamroll my way of life.

I think we're on the same page re platform vs protocol moderation based on how the discussion on NIP-69 has gone. The horseshoe dynamic here is interesting. It would be hard to find two people more politically distant than we are, and yet we align pretty well on this content labeling issue.

I’m shocked. You can’t bring yourself to call a death threat “hate speech”.

SMH…

#WWJD…

Cash app, strike

I have Cash App. There are fees (~2%) going USD to BTC.

Is there a way to go USD -> Lightning (sats) without going through the pain of on-chain BTC?

prediction: Bluesky becomes a client of nostr before Twitter becomes a client of nostr

but in the long run we’re all clients of nostr 🤙

Rephrased… “Bluesky becomes a client of Nostr before Twitter goes out of business”… lol

not a fan of rss reposting of social.

the mastodon bridge... If I reply will it carry that back across to mastodon?

what's an example of the best/ideal bridge between networks

why not just build client's that can handle multiple accounts into one feed, like my rss reader takes google alerts & searches and used to pull in twitter before the api shut down?

#[4] has mentioned that the Mastodon bridge works (more or less).

I only asked a rhetorical question. Your opinion is that the above content is a criminal threat. I'm not sure you'd be able to prove that in court (it's not very specific or directed), but maybe you're right.

My point is about the term "hate speech", defined by the UN as "speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are." This is an extremely broad definition!

If a speech act is illegal, you don't need the extra category of hate speech, just call the cops and remove it if you can. If a speech act isn't illegal, it's protected in the US from government interference. A free speech protocol should be very careful about requiring all participants to censor more strictly than what is required by law.

Moderation is a different topic, and in my opinion can be basically arbitrary. The trick is decoupling protocol-level moderation (permissive) from platform-level moderation (strict).

The category of "hate speech" is in practice synonymous with that of "blasphemy". Every culture has norms regulating speech based on what it holds sacred, very often enforced by law. The US used to have Christian blasphemy laws intended to honor God; we will soon have liberal blasphemy laws based on the shared cultural value of "tolerance" (which is, by the way, not a Christian virtue or value. I can provide citations if you like).

The term "hate speech" is "hate speech", because it re-defines legal political speech as illegal, using the same framework as blasphemy laws. The result is that the freedom of certain groups to express themselves is restricted, because their speech contravenes the gods of their nation. Or, to borrow your phrase, "intolerance of intolerance" hurts all dissidents.

As a Christian, I prefer Christian blasphemy laws to blasphemy laws that restrict my freedom to say what I think is true. As someone who sympathizes with libertarianism, I am very cautious about all blasphemy laws, and would prefer to err on the side of permissiveness.

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't condone the speech you cited above, and would choose to moderate it. But that's entirely beside the point. I also agree with your original note, other than the use of the term "hate speech".

1) The term “hate speech” has nothing to do with whether it’s criminal. Hate is hate, whether it’s illegal or not.

2) The UN’s broad definition is based on them (collectively) seeing hate in a very broad range of situations. The fact that my example meets their definition bolsters the point I was making.

3) The fact that you’d choose to moderate it (presumably because it’s hateful) is exactly the point I was making.

As far as “protocol-level” vs “platform-level”… Protocol-level censorship is impossible on Nostr. There’s no point in discussing it. It’s a red herring.

“Platform-level” stuff is more complicated. There are very specific use cases that are being built on Nostr that are clearly “platforms” (e.g. the creator solution Mazin is building). Then there’s “kind 1” which I think is better called a “common area” shared by many platforms.

The protocol needs a way to let everyone experience the common areas without fear or harassment. Which in practical terms means letting their “community guardians” label things that are problems for their community as problems (like content matching their definition of “hate speech”).

Saying that labeling things as “hate speech” is problematic makes the problem worse, not better. We need to acknowledge the problem and address it.

The Blocksize Wars Review:

Increasing the block size limit became a divisive topic within the Bitcoin community from 2015-2017. This lead to the emergence of two opposing factions:

those who wanted to increase the block size limit (big blockers) and those who believed doing so would compromise the decentralization and security of the network (small blockers).

Small blockers were for the people 'controlling' Bitcoin and for computer science principles.

Big blockers were for businesses or large entities 'controlling' Bitcoin.

Can you explain why big blocks are beneficial to large entities?

What’s your elevator pitch for nostr?

Imagine that Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tumblr, TikTok, were all just different interfaces on the same feed. And that no corporation controlled what could go on the feed. And it was all done with proper encryption. That's pretty much Nostr.

Hey #[0] the nostr-embed is nifty.

https://github.com/nostrband/nostr-embed

Would it be possible to make a server that generated oembed html for displaying notes? And would it be possible to do it for other event types so clients that don’t support an event type, would have a way to display it to users?

That is cool. I can totally see using that!

You're putting words in my mouth

I think you put the words in your own mouth…

You say "The term 'hate speech' is hate speech". I give an example where my announcement of the first LGBTQ relay gets a reply of "kill all child groomers". It was a clear death threat - perhaps not aimed specifically at me, but aimed at people _like_ me. I label that "hate speech" and you push back saying…

"Is that a political statement or a personal threat? The former is protected, the latter is criminal. "Hate speech" as a category is a way of criminalizing speech based on its political content."

So you just labeled a death threat as a "political statement". Basically you're condoning, or at least excusing/facilitating, violence and murder.

Sorry, but…

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Or to look at it another way - you make it clear that you're a Christian. I was brought up in an evangelical/fundamentalist Christian home. I went to a Baptist school for many years, church three times a week… There was even a period when Jerry Falwell was my pastor. I understand Christianity well. (I'm now a Deist.)

So "what would Jesus do" in this situation? If you look only at his words and his life - he relentlessly stood up for the powerless and the disadvantaged. He accepted people for who they were and simply asked them to be better. The only time in his life he was ever violent was when people had corrupted religion. When it came to civil society he advocated getting along with others - going as far as simply accepting the authority of a violent/abusive government (e.g. "pay unto Caesar…", and allowing himself to be crucified).

I'm sorry, but the Jesus I studied as a child would never see what I posted as anything but hate speech. He preached the exact opposite of that - "Do unto others…"

I think what you're missing is that intolerance of intolerance is a double negative. The outcome of being intolerant of intolerance is tolerance, not more intolerance. That's just how double negatives work - both in language and in math. Saying "The term 'hate speech' is hate speech" is wrong because you're saying intolerance of intolerance (e.g. calling hate what it is - hate) is just like other forms of intolerance. It's not.

But seriously - if you're gonna label yourself a Christian - at least try to be Christ-like… Jesus didn't/wouldn't call death threats "political statements". While he might tell someone to "turn the other cheek" when faced with a death threat (as he did), he wouldn't condone/excuse/facilitate the person issuing the death threat.

Is that a political statement or a personal threat? The former is protected, the latter is criminal. "Hate speech" as a category is a way of criminalizing speech based on its political content.

You seriously are OK with death threats on Nostr? And here I though you seemed like a decent human being…

There was NOTHING civil about how that person expressed themselves.

I’m also guessing you’ve never been responsible for an online community.

I’m going to make it so you can cancel zaps if you click it accidentally

Potentially dumb question… Why can’t you undo likes and reposts?

Trying to buy 2 years of filter.nostr.wine but keep getting messages from WoS that the transaction can’t be completed. #frustrating!

#[1]

The term "hate speech" is hate speech

If that’s true, then please give me the correct term for this…

Hate groups _will_ come to Nostr. It’s kinda a perfect platform for them. So we need to be prepared…

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-sentencing-verdict.html

“…it’s really important to remember that only somewhere between 7 and 15 percent of all the violent terrorist attacks come from the far right. The vast majority of violence that we see, including on Jan. 6, is not tied to anybody who’s a member of a group.”

That’s important because hate is somewhat universal. This is why communities that adopt Nostr need to be able to have safe experiences. That doesn’t mean they should be ghettoized and confined to their own relays. It means they need to be able to explore the “common areas” of Nostr and encounter a minimum of hate in the process.

The proposed NIP-69 is part of the solution. So is the proposed NIP-97. Both of those will let people choose their own experiences.

But the “guardians” of those communities - the people who have the fortitude to face the hate - need the tools to find and report the problem so that sympathetic relays can remove the content. That’s something NIP-69 can do that NIP-97 can’t.

We can’t stop the hate. But we can manage it. If we don’t manage it, Nostr will become a very dark place. I would hate to see that happen.

Drove 1750 miles (Las Vegas to Chicago) over the last three days…

What did I miss in the world of nostr?

(To give non-Americans a sense of the scale, that’s like driving from Paris to Istanbul)

What did you miss? Well, for starters Fiatjaf called Bluesky a scam…

https://fiatjaf.com/ab1127fb.html

Who has a good nostr icon in svg format that looks good in small sizes?

nostr:npub107jk7htfv243u0x5ynn43scq9wrxtaasmrwwa8lfu2ydwag6cx2quqncxg nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft ?

Feel free to grab the one on my site (it's embedded in the HTML - otherwise I'd give you a direct URL)… https://s3x.social/

Load More