If you have to ask a lawyer before doing something, that thing is not permissionless, if it isn't permissionless, then why the fuck make it decentralised?
The only purpose of decentralisation is to do things without asking permission, not only to do illegal things but to not even care what is legal and what is not.
nostr:nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzpwgv8jm36e358cq3qn2unt0hmvzaxejnk9mqrlum9m464qd7v7prqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq32amnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwv3sk6atn9e5k7tcqyred4negr03sz3x2dcgfx49dus5wy3y6nu5hzrc2hullupxg5aqp7yw26qm
Replies (10)
so ... anarchy?
Are Bitcoin and Bittorrent anarchy? If so then yes anarchy
Are we considering federated systems as decentralized here?
Anarchy is a human attitude, not a system property.
Either way, on a pure systems level Nostr is never going to be decentralised anywhere near the degree of Bitcoin or Bittorrent. “Never mind what’s legal” is probably the worst possible growth marketing strategy for Nostr.
True, social media can't be decentralised... But Nostr is actually a group chat, and it is barely doing that well, but it can do it perfectly while maintaining decentralisation and it is clear that when Nostr Devs realise this dichotomy the choose censorship resistance.
For social media, you have centralized platforms, Bluesky is one of which, but they will keep removing all the decentralisation circus because they already have an uphill battle of network effects.
I never claimed that social media can be censorship resistant, I am just confused by this nonsense of compliant decentralisation... It is so absurd.
Decentralisation is usually just a bad word choice, we usually mean censorship resistance... And yes federated architecture can be very resistant to censorship
I'd agree that compliant decentralisation makes no sense. The decentralised system itself has no awareness.
Compliance is just an attitude that humans using a decentralised system can decide to take or not take.
Burning wood is a pretty decentralised way to warm your home, some places allow it, others have bylaws that forbid it. The compliance issue is a separate matter from the physical properties of wood and wood stoves. Some people will respect those bylaws, others will take the chance and flout them. Nothing odd or absurd about that to me.
The way I see it is, every one of these social media protocols claiming to be decentralized or "free" will just become reduced to requiring Tor or something in order to avoid laws
How would that work when you need to KYC to update your PLC identity or to post on the 3 available indexers?
It is over social media can't be fixed
If the goal is top-to-bottom censorship resistance then I'd agree.
But who chooses top-to-bottom censorship resistance as the north star for designing a social network that's supposed to get decent traction in the real world?
