Avatar
banjo
94f66a6138a20e120cefbe343103186804847ad9619316761e3e76a062d5fed0
"Freedom of speech is being able to tell someone else something they don't want to hear." "No matter what you say, someone is going to be offended." "Once you realize that politicians are not altruistic, and that they're in politics for themselves and their own personal gain, then everything makes sense." "No one is above the law." "Have you ever met a poor politician?"
Replying to Avatar Dan Wedge

Censorship and filtering are two distinct concepts, though they are often related in practice, particularly concerning internet content.

**Censorship** involves the suppression or prohibition of content deemed inappropriate, offensive, or a threat by an external authority, such as a government or organization. This authority decides what content should be restricted, and individuals typically have no control over these decisions. Censorship can involve removing or altering content and can apply to books, films, news, and online information[2][3][5].

**Filtering**, on the other hand, is generally a process where individuals or organizations control access to content based on specific criteria. It allows users to choose what they want to block or allow, often using technology like software that blocks content based on keywords or traffic patterns. Filtering is often used to tailor content consumption to personal preferences or organizational policies[1][4][5].

While both methods restrict access to information, censorship is imposed by an external authority without user choice, whereas filtering involves user control and choice over what content is accessed[5][6].

Sources

[1] What's different between filters and a "censure"? If ... - DEV Community https://dev.to/vasilvestre/comment/78gd

[2] A question of ethics: filtering and censoring the Internet - Jonsdocs https://blog.jonsdocs.org.uk/2019/06/16/a-question-of-ethics-filtering-and-censoring-the-internet/

[3] Access to Content: Censorship, Blocking and Filtering | eReader https://www.mediadefence.org/ereader/publications/advanced-modules-on-digital-rights-and-freedom-of-expression-online/module-2-restricting-access-and-content/access-to-content-censorship-blocking-and-filtering/

[4] Internet Filters - National Coalition Against Censorship https://ncac.org/resource/internet-filters-2

[5] FAQ: Is filtering and censoring the same thing? - VidAngel Blog https://blog.vidangel.com/faq-is-filtering-and-censoring-the-same-thing/

[6] Why There Is A Fine Line Between Filtering and Censorship Online https://unitedperfectum.com/news/why-there-is-a-fine-line-between-filtering-and-censorship-online/

[7] How to: Understand and Circumvent Network Censorship ... https://ssd.eff.org/module/understanding-and-circumventing-network-censorship

[8] Web architecture: Filtering and Censorship - W3C https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Filtering.html

Yes! I completely agree!

Censorship is "suppression or prohibition of content"..."by an external authority"

I agree...

Filtering is "a process where individuals or organizations control access to content"

I agree...

Consequently, Nostr needs INDIVIDUAL control over content--not CENTRALIZED control over content.

"While both methods restrict access to information, censorship is imposed by an external authority without user choice (i.e., a relay operator), whereas filtering involves user control and choice over what content is accessed"

Replying to Avatar Matt

Calling everything censorship is confusing and a waste of time. Using the term in its broadest sense leaves so much room for confusion that you'd be better off using a different term. And that may just be the case at this point.

For example:

Government putting you in jail for saying you hate war is censorship.

X removing child pornography is censorship, in the broadest sense. But it's also an illegal and immoral material.

Let's say someone on X posts a video detailing how much they hate some particular race and want them to all die, for example. This isn't necessarily illegal in the US without some threat, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a violation of the service's terms of use or moral standards. Removing it is censorship in a broad sense, but it is their right and I'd guess a large portion of X users and customers would prefer to not associate with such content.

I prefer to use censorship in the context of force, such as government force against pure speech or thought. The lines are a lot more clear. Private property vs Government force.

Nostr clients and relays should absolutely be able to filter certain objectionable content. I would not use Nostr if I had to be subjected to whatever anyone anywhere wanted to post. They can run their own relay and client if they wish, but that's the freedom aspect to me. I don't value the freedom to subject anyone to anything at any time. That isn't what free speech even means., and I don't think telling someone to simply not use Nostr is a strategic response. That's a great way to go nowhere fast and end up associated with something that becomes known as a place for child pornography creators and similar to hangout. Good luck with that.

What gets filtered will always be debated, and my opinion is that Nostr is beautiful because we can all choose what level of filtration is right for us. I think this issue will be a bigger focus as more people join. It has to be. I've already seen things using certain clients that were annoying, and other things that were absolutely disgusting and immoral. I would have already dipped if that was the case no matter what I did as a user.

Some baseline safety is going to be required for most people to comfortably use Nostr, and that means there will always be some 'censorship' involved. It isn't always bad, and having it as an option isn't a bad thing either. What is bad is having no control as a user one way or the other, which is what I think Nostr will actually solve.

This has been the historical arguement for censorship..."hey, there are 'things' that we all agree should be censored" (e.g., child porn).

But historically that has always been the "nose under the camel's tent" - it leads to more and more censorship, and pretty soon we're back where we started.

And it's faulty logic to say "well if you don't want censorship, then you're for child porn" (or something similar). That's simply a way to silence an opposing view via personal attacks...

Make no mistake-this is a VERY complicated and nuanced topic. But we're now on the precipice of totalitarianism in the world PRECISELY because we began to allow censorship, and feeling that "some" censorship is "ok"....

Consequently, I am passionate about Nostr--it is our last hope for free speech.

We MUST proceed with extreme caution, not take the "easy" way out, and CERTAINLY we must not repeat our historical mistakes .

Agree COMPLETELY. We need simple tools so that INDIVIDUALS can make their own choices.

Look at it this way--if all USERS simply block spam on their own by muting, then we will (over time) extinguish spam.

The solution is to make better tools for INDIVIDUALS to use, and to not censor at a global (relay) level.

Yes--agree. Yet practically speaking, if Nostr is going to prosper than most will not have the knowledge (nor desire) to run their own relays.

Consequently these decisions (whether to censor, and how to do so) will ultimately determine the sucess (or failure) of the entire protocol.

Given that Nostr was created in response to censorship on other platforms, then enabling censorship on Nostr seems to put us all on that same trajectory.

We're better than that...FIND A WAY to solve the problem WITHOUT central control by some type of "authority".

Let ME choose what I would like to read...

A rose by any other name...censorship is censorship. Calling it "filtering" is silly...

Let me be clear--I see Nostr as the savior of online communication . We (as its stewards) need to be EXTREMELY careful to not destroy it as it grows and matures.

Conceptually (IMHO) the answer is to create blacklists / whitelists that users subscribe to--those lists can be created by node operators or by external groups--and then the INDIVIDUAL chooses to enable those lists or not.

We all do this already--most here do not look at the "global" feed--but I would NEVER say "let's just turn off global--no one reads it". But that is exactly what you're advocating for.

Free and open communication is just that--and it's MY choice to decide what I will (and will not0 listen to. And it's NOT your choice to do that for me.

If you want to solve the problem, then create tools that let INDIVIDUALS censor whatever they want...maybe they can subscribe to whitelists and blacklists...

But it has to be at an INDIVIDUAL level--NOT a central level.

Maybe it's easier to code it centrally--I get that--but just because it's easier doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

And I CERTAINLY will not...but your'e advocating for the exact thing that Nostr was created to prevent.

Seriously, I cannot believe that you're saying "censorship is the answer"...

That's what Twitter is for...

Or... perhaps you're saying that if YOU are to be the ultimate arbiter of what should be censored, then it's ok...

Check your ego at the door my friend...

GM Nostr!

Happy Wednesday!

Going to be a windy, rainy and colder day today. We could use the rain, but it'll likely mean I'll have to defer some outdoor activities I'd planned for later in the day...we'll see how the weather shapes up.

In the meantime, going to enjoy the hot coffee, check out he happenings on Nostr, and send some zaps.

#coffeechain

Well--it's a proprietary OS (which I'm not a fan of--would much prefer open source).

It's also $989

Pixel 8a is $399

Pixel 9 is $799

Graphene is free

So...I'm not quite sure why I'd pay more money for a UP proprietary OS phone, rather than running Graphene...?

If you want security, you need to have hardware that supports it.

One can browse the internet on a Pentium II...but I suspect most would not be comfortable doing so...

LOL--lots of work getting done there... 😃

#GrapheneOS will allow you to configure your phone to eliminate any services you'd like (i.e., make your phone "dumb") if you so choose...

Or you can enable any features you'd like...

You could also create a "smart" user profile, and a "dumb" user profile, and only use the smart features when you choose.

Amazing flexibility...

https://grapheneos.org/

GM Nostr!

Happy Tuesday!

#coffeechain classic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5N7qHmEgxA

Well, it's quite easy to tell them apart...

One is a blood sucking entiy, that is the true personification of evil, and is almost impossilbe to terminate...

The other sounds like Bela Lugosi.