> The point that I am trying to make and I am not sure you are getting: if we take the decentralized system as the Internet and the different social Networks as

> The point that I am trying to make and I am not sure you are getting: if we take the decentralized system as the Internet and the different social Networks as "relays with autonomy over their own content", isn't that already an example that that each subnetwork gets to enforce the policies that their own communities value? Yes. I agree that this model can, and does, work. Mastodon and old school web forums were the examples I gave upthread where they do work. And I believe these work because forum owners / mastodon server owners have the capability and necessary incentives to moderate content posted on their subnetworks. As I understand Nostr's design (relays / clients), and its explicit citation that Mastodon's model is bad because "3rd party (server hosts) can censor you", I do not believe your success model is applicable. Nostr relays lack the incentive and accountability needed to moderate content much the same way Bitcoin miners do. > The problem I am taking with your view is that shows a not-so-subtle hint of totalitarianism. It tries to use the abuses caused by people with freedom to justify that we all should lose our liberties (or accept that global subjugation to a common set of rules as inevitable. Holy slippery slope, batman! Global Totalitarianism! Believe it or not, there exists a middle ground between total "LIBERY!" freedom! Moderate yourselves, nerds! and endorsing a Global Cabal of Media Reviewers. What I completely reject is that the primary problem with YouTube, Facebook, and the like is that they're arbitrarily censoring "views they don't like". The handful of examples of this I've ever seen have been comically obvious censorable material, or actual very difficult decisions that it's completely reasonable to understand why the decision was made. I have many other concerns about these mega-tech companies that I find infinitely more troubling than their current content moderation practices. At the end of the day, these companies are accountable. If nothing else, you have the option to leave! See Twitter. Embracing decentralization for the sake of decentralization only complicates this accountability, potentially to the point where no-one has any appreciable accountability (a la Bitcoin, again). What I also reject is the implication that this is a simple problem. The Paradox of tolerance is a thing, and it's just plain complicated. And not something decentralization—or any other technology—can solve. > To repeat: you keep arguing like the enthusiasts of decentralized platforms are "anti-censorship", when in fact the fight is about claiming back some sense of autonomy and agency to let people be able to do the moderation/curation themselves (or to someone closer to them who understands their values and social context better) I think you and I actually have a lot in common in that respect. I'm a big Mastodon fan, run my own #HOMELAB to reclaim ownership of my data, do the whole POSSE thing, etc. I'm all about all of this stuff. What I reject is this perverse idea that the biggest problem with big tech is that they're just haphazardly censoring ideas they don't like (it's always conservative ideas). It's little more than a conspiracy theory that's led to virtually every social media platform today happily platforming actual Nazis (because of the free speech, you know?) and forbidding such taboo things as sex workers, critics of the CEO, etc. These are decisions. And platforms like Flame exist for basically one reason: to further propagate the conspiracy that big tech (like the mainstream media, colleges & universities, etc.) are just completely and irrationally biased against poor old conservatives who just want to, like, share their opinions, man.