I don't think it's ironic at all! As far as I'm concerned, the benefit of Nostr is that it puts the control in the hands of the user what content they allow themselves to see. To me, the fact that Nostr is open source is 100% a means to an end; I would value Nostr just as much if it was closed source and paywalled! And of course I'm here in a conversation about an open source piece of software. I love talking with people I disagree with. It's a very important part of figuring out where your thought process went so wrong! Speaking of which, is my guess on the mark? My first rough hypothesis was that you guys think developers have an obligation to produce software for strangers. Another weird idea is that you guys hate knowing that you are missing out on a piece of software, and would rather someone pretend not to have any software ideas than that you have to see software that you aren't willing to pay for. Are either of those correct yet? Is there something I'm still missing?

I think I understand what you're saying, but no, those are not my beliefs. I don't feel entitled to any software or that developers should make things free. I'm happy to pay for products that serve a valuable service to me. my issue really lies in the trust one needs to put into developers and/or companies ESPECIALLY if it is closed source. I've seen too many times where closed systems are manipulated to the detriment of the users. this manipulation could be done with malicious intent, or by accident. when source code is available and builds reproducible the users are capable of seeing WHAT the software is ACTUALLY doing. for example, if any nostr client was proprietary/closed source there is no way to verify that upon keygen in a client that the developer is not creating a copy of said key. now I'm not saying FOSS is a silver bullet for my issues with proprietary software but is a means to an end.