Replies (8)

Nostr itself doesn't, but popular clients implementing opt-out filters labeled as merely "spam filters" and then arguing in bad faith when called out on it sends a message a supposedly "censorship-resistant" protocol shouldn't be advocating for. There's a reason I'm not using Amethyst anymore, as I also ceased using it during the Onyx fork era.
But this is highlighting the censorship resistance of Nostr. If one client does something you don't like or one relay does something you don't like, you have a plethora of other choices. X does not have different choices to post signal.me links. That's the difference. I know you get that.
Scoundrel's avatar
Scoundrel 10 months ago
Low transparency filters are still a form of censorship. Sure, Nostr is unique in the fact that it allows you to choose your client and your relays. This is already way better than alternative microblogging platforms, which can take away users' ability to communicate even when they know exactly what's going on. However, Nostr's theoretical censorship resistance is kind of moot when there is no way for a user to figure out how to actually achieve it in practice. Which relays do you draw from? What client do you use? What settings should you change? One of the greatest aspects of the Fediverse is how so many instances publish blocklists that anyone can view. As I understand Minds, all of their moderation decisions are incredibly transparent. What can a new Nostr user do if they want to audit a relay that "only filters spammy notes"? How can a Noster user tell when they are missing a note? And how can a Nostr user find that note after they find out about it? New users already complain about how it's impossible to differentiate relays. And it's a general consensus that a user shouldn't have to read the source code of a client just to figure out what it's filtering by default.
Scoundrel's avatar
Scoundrel 10 months ago
By the way, I'm never ever leaving Nostr. I don't care how inhospitable this place gets; I'm never putting my interactions in the hands of third party ever again.