The fact that you think there are no valid criticisms of your beliefs suggests you are part of a cult.
Understood but I think you'll still be affected as it's an existential problem, the same problem that destroys all of the zero-censorship platforms in the end. The platform devolves into only the worst elements.
The problem is with the absolutist idea of allowing anything and everything. Most normal people don't want that so it's impossible to gain broad appeal without some level of censorship.
Good luck in court with that one. "Nostr services only distribute the child sexual assault material, technically the original copy is stored on another service".
It's not really hard to understand. Anything you see on a social media platform is a liability for that platform. If as a platform they shrug and say "not my problem, we don't moderate content" then they're gonna get crucified in court.
Apparently all you support is pedos. Bear in mind your arguments so far have been that you don't think censoring illegal content is a good thing and then that you think pedos should just be allowed access to child sexual assault material. To me it sounds like you're just trying to protect your own sick interests at this point.
And to be clear, people don't have to subscribe to free speech absolutism to be free. We choose to live in societies and we agree to abide by common rules. In the same way you can't bash someone head in with a brick without repercussions, there are some things you can't spread without repercussions.
The problem is that you free speech absolutist types take a broad concept of being able to say something out loud then you try to apply that to publishing and data transmission, things it was never designed to apply to, and you apply it to any company rather than just the government which is what free speech laws apply to.
I'll make it clear. Free speech does not include the right to distribute child sexual assault material. If you think it does then you are a pedo and should hand yourself and your computer into the authorities.
Holy shit, your level of pedo apologism is way higher than I thought.
I have to say by the way that you guys need to find better examples if you want to convince people that censorship is a bad thing. Saying "I wasn't allowed to spread dangerous health misinformation during a pandemic" isn't really a strong selling point.
If anything many normal people don't think governments went hard enough or fast enough at cracking down on misinformation and that resulted in a great many deaths.
In some cases they are. Snort I believe is deployed operated by the developer for example.
It's not hard to find but node operators do try to keep the worst stuff harder to access and there's plenty of cooperation with authorities.
It would be hilarious. I actually think it's a good thing when people who help distribute child sexual assault material are charged. Even better if they get full custodial sentences. So if you operate a relay that doesn't remove that or you run a website where relays that provide that content can be used, then you should be jailed. Preferably with a massive angry guy on a triple life sentence.
It really depends on what you want from the platform though. If you want a platform where no normal people frequent, the apps all have to be installed manually and you have to use dodgy relays and DNS servers and it's just you an a bunch of illegal abhorrent types, then the way it's currently going is the path to that.
But if you want broad reach then you have to be able to keep the platform within the law, and unfortunately for you (not me because I don't actually subscribe to the cult of free speech absolutism) that's going to require censorship to some degree.
Same applies to the apps though, if the apps allow access to illegal content then the apps are also liable. Which means ultimately the apps end up having to either apply censorship themselves before it reaches the browser or they have to only operate on nodes with censorship.
At that point, what's the benefit of the protocol, other than being a really slow way to send information?
No, Nostr app devs bear the same responsibility that app providers share. Snort for example is a social media platform. Anything shown on it is legally their responsibility. The law won't care that the owners try to claim it's just a protocol to get around having to take responsibility.
Nostr isn't Tor. And even then Tor nodes can and do make it difficult to access some illegal services.
But it'll be funny watching the devs trying to claim "it's just a protocol, we can't be responsible for what's on it" when the services they operate are being used to distribute child sexual assault material.
Gee, I'm so sad. My happiness depended on some pedo apologist continuing to message me.
🤣 Dumbass.
You are supporting it. It's already on the public relays people are using.
Nostr instructs that the content is not removed though, because removing content is apparently "censorship". As soon as you start saying it's fine to remove content, the purpose of the protocol ceases to matter and you may as well use http.
And so as a result the relays are used by the existing apps are not moderated and so you literally share a platform with illegal content. This is not theoretical, illegal content exists on the platform and short of only using moderated relays that remove content, nothing can be done to stop it.
It should also be noted that from a legal standpoint it's not just the relays at risk, if the front ends and apps support access to the it then they also have a legal duty to remove illegal content for any jurisdiction they operate in. I doubt "it's a protocol" will carry much weight in court when developers are defending their apps allowing access to child sexual assault images.
So you have no issue with pedophiles being able to share content on the network and tip each other for it? For me that's not the type of thing I'd be willing to support and is the main reason I won't be on this platform in the long-term.
Filtering generally wouldn't be enough. Apps on the Apple and Google app stores already violate the ToS of the stores because they have to be able to remove - not hide - illegal content.
Right now any relay hosting illegal content (which there's definitely is a fair amount of on the platform already) are at risk from a legal perspective as distributors of that content.
I do understand. Don't mistake me disagreeing with you with me not understanding. I understand entirely that you want to be able to say things that get you banned on any normal platform, saying things you would never say to people face to face and you say behind a screen of anonymity. And you're so desperate for that you even support a platform that allows pedophiles to trade abuse images.
What you fail to understand is that nromal peopel will not stick around on this platform with content like that being allowed, so congratulations you'll be free to say whatever you want in an echo chamber that only contains other die-hard supporters like you and some pedos and Nazis.
Is that your ultimate goal for the platform? To have a tiny platform that noone uses full of abhorrent content just so you can feel like you've not been censored, even though noone is seeing what you say? Because that's what all of these zero censorship platforms devolve into
I'm sure the police will investigate by the way. And what they'll do is go after the node providers hosting the content and refusing to take it down, so you can pretty much kiss goodbye to any nodes operated by people in the US or Europe. Since the content is on the extreme side of illegal it wouldn't surprise me if authorities went after app developers that refused to remove the content too.
Google and Apple will almost certainly take down any apps on their stores too, since it's requirement that illegal user-generated content be removed, not just hidden so the apps will have to either implement full censorship or they won't be able to distribute on the stores.
Amusingly, the only reason you didn't find them is because nostr.band censors some profiles by default behind the spam filter. On android and on Snort that user shows up.
You are supporting it though. If you believe that noone should be censored then you are supporting this user posting sick, abhorrent content and being able to share it with others, tip each other, etc. You are specifically stating that you don't think these users should lose access to the platform no matter what they post.
And bear in mind that for a normal user on a normal browser not hiding behind a VPN, when they see this stuff then mute it it still get cached to their machine and can land them in trouble with the law, so what possible reason would a normal person have to come on a platform that is open to pedos?
I'm not going to get into a massive antivax argument with you, but no, spreading more misinformation would not have saved lives. If anything quite the opposite is true.
Why would I want to launch a paid moderated relay? I don't support pedos and Nazis and I don't post dangerous misinformation so like 99.9% of people I have no problem using multiple normal social media platforms. Why would I contribute to populating a platform that supports pedos?
It wouldn't even be able to interconnect with other unfiltered relays so it'd end up just being a standalone social media app and server, at which point why would I use the slow ass protocol Nostr is built on?
That's definitely not true though. I saw loads of vaccine misinformation and loads of people complaining abut vaccines throughout the pandemic. People that were banned were the people going way beyond the limits and creating dangerous situations.
I do understand completely, you inventing a scenario that didn't happen based on your persecution complex so you can makes yourself feel justified in supporting a platform that allows pedophiles to trade abuse images and even monetize them.
Yes, he had his social networks removed because he was spreading dangerous misinformation that was resulting in people trusting fake health information and making health choices that killed them based on it. In my view I wouldn't just silence people spreading dangerous antivax information, I'd hold them liable for every single death that resulted from it.
I love how you think you're going to change my mind by complaining that you don't feel it was fair that you weren't allowed to convinced people to kill themselves based on fake information.
Plenty of people talk against vaccines and don't get banned. You problem is that you want to spread dangerous misinformation about vaccines. It's not like you want to have a fact-based discussion about vaccines, you just want to scream nonsense about them and convince people not to get vaccinated.
I don't have to worry about being banned because I'm not a lunatic, that's what it comes down to. So if you feel you are so incapable of self-restraint that you can only hang out on a platform that allows Nazis and pedos, then by all means do so. Just don't cry when it fails to reach broad appeal and the apps get purged from all the stores.
Well I was here to see if there was any merit to the system but now I'm here to laugh at how deluded some of you guys are. The second I said a single thing that did adhere to your cultish beliefs you guys started foaming at the mouth and complaining about me being here. Kinda highlights how weak your position is.