Now I’m no lawyer (I hope to hire one though … ) but it looks like Mississippi law is gonna disagree with you about “nostr clients”. I’d wager that their definition of a “digital service”, as one that “collects or processes personal identifying information”, is gonna encompass any Nostr client that sends events to relays. The term “processor” has special legal meaning in this context, as does “controller”. Nostr’s architecture lends itself well to separation of concern, allowing apps to perform discrete services on behalf of “user controllers”. Because events are signed by user held keys (and thereby “immutable”) relays simply storing events would not be considered controllers or processors. But I’m sure regulators will find other ways to regulate, if they wish.

Replies (1)

But relays do access management on the content though, be it implicit or explicit via NIP-42. So why would they not be controllers? Anyway, all of this stuff is very tiresome. I honestly believe that the underlying problems/issues that cause these stupid laws everywhere can be adressed by Nostr in actuall practical ways. Atleast, that is assuming these laws atleast have the intent to solve problems and not just be an excuse for controll. In any case Nostr fixes that problem as well .