I am with you on your position that violence and genocide is bad and I wouldn't give them a platform either, but historical cases aside, do you believe we should have protocols that allow for censorship-resistant and deplatforming-resistant public communications?

Replies (2)

@El Flaco bo que piensas estamos haciendo acá? Fumando porro con un sueño que todo va a estar mejor si tenemos código para inventar un nuevo mundo de hadas y unicornios? Claro quiero tener una protocolo donde no puede existir control central que puede censurar gente. Pero esto no significa que no puedo tener un espacio en mi relay o mis grupos donde si puedo decidir que comportamiento es aceptable o inaceptable? Free speech es el derecho a hablar. Pero también tenemos el derecho de decidir a quien vamos a escuchar. No quiero una red donde puedo decidir a quien puedo conectar. Pero tampoco quiero una que mi obliga a hablar con vos o ver tus comentarios.
> que piensas estamos haciendo acá? Most people are excited about nostr because it makes it hard to deplatform dissenting voices by virtue of its architecture and I am no different. Hearing you sympathize with deplatforming in the context of a presentation about Nostr put me off, that's why I had to ask directly. Mind you, I'm not questioning property rights. We're in agreement that you should have every right to kick me out of your living room or your relay for any or no reason, only listen to and associate with the people that you like. My question to you was about deplatforming as in restricting a person’s ability to communicate publicy - specifically in the context of Nostr. Glad to hear that you do want Nostr to be a protocol that enables even speech you don't like. Thanks for clarifying.