fair. what about if someone is following me on nostr but I only post notes to a single personal relay (completely uncensorable) and they don't have that relay in their subscriptions? my reach to them is zero, but my speech is unlimited (to my own relay). my point is reach is an emergent property of the current dynamics of the network topology, infrastructure, costs, client software, etc. speech is different. I can post to my own relay with 100% confidence in freedom of my speech. but I can't control my reach (I can nudge it) just like someone else cannot force me to broadcast their message (their reach)

I'm sorry to interject. This is a discussion I hope for anyone building on nostr to think over deeply. At what general line does the burden of distribution shift from the followers to the publishers or vice versa? And how well does any sort of middle infrastructure accommodate or hinder the basic expectations of either? (Yes, outbox, but...) I'm not really looking for answers, since there really is no way to create a uniform line. It's just something I ponder when I notice things missing.

no need to apologize. nostr is for public conversations :) (or at least in this mode here). outbox + inbox (cc @Alex Gleason ) creates some pretty interesting dynamics for that burden you're referencing to shift around in fun ways

Are you just describing some hypothetical absurd situation? Because to me that is the same as saying: "what if I have this website for my company and people type the URL to access it but their web browsers my competitor's website instead?" The concept of free speech is nonsensical by itself anyway and no one should ever use it. Basically you can argue that anyone has freedom of speech no matter the circumstance -- the person could be in solitary confinement, but they can still talk. So whatever. Now you're introducing this other thing, "reach", which is what most people understood by "freedom of speech" 2 years ago, although the terms were never properly defined (and that's why people can define them now in even more nonsensical ways to poison the discussion), and now you're saying that "reach" is this complicated thing and blablabla. My point is: Nostr solves the problem of letting person A following person B. X and any platform can and do prevent A from seeing person B's posts, either by banning B or by shadowbanning B or whatever other nuance you can think of. Now, answering the question from the first paragraph: if the browser doesn't display the damn website but the website is available that is a bug in the web browser, it's not some abstract undefined problem of "reach".