5 ms·

I think it's more of an arcitectural issue. If you were a node operator, would you peer with a dedicated racial hatred AP node? What if a small minority of your

I think it's more of an arcitectural issue. If you were a node operator, would you peer with a dedicated racial hatred AP node? What if a small minority of your users complained that you blocked it. With something like nostr, you are free as a relay operator to block whatever makes you feel uncomfortable, while users can just get that content from some other relay without having to create a new account and move their entire social graph over.

vidarh 3y ago
This, to me, is an argument against Nostr. To elaborate, I prefer that the barrier is greater.
- saurik 3y ago
  Because... you are terrified that you might manage to figure out how to access such content, and need to make it extremely difficult for you to do so, even on purpose? (I clearly don't understand.)
  - vidarh 3y ago
    No, because I want to be able to choose to interact with people who are fine with there being barriers to similar types of content. If some feel they have a compelling reason to straddle both, they still can, so it denies them nothing, but sometimes even small extra barriers helps set a tone for communities.
- echelon 3y ago
  Why should minds be put in jails? Why should we segregate into like-minded and undesirables? We're better than this. I grew up with [x views, y political party], but because the early internet was open and accepting and not at all like this, I was able to see the broader world and wholly new perspectives. Now the bias is to shit on, shame, and block everyone. That's not going to build a better society. The internet pioneers would be aghast at all of the "happy little" censorship happening today. I've been banned from several subreddits for leaving comments in subreddits the moderators dislike. Removed completely by automation. They don't even realize my comments weren't in support of their favorite issue to hate on. Censorship is wrong. Put blinders on your own feed all day long if you so choose, but stop trying to put cages on other people's minds and voices.
  - vidarh 3y ago
    No minds are "put in jails". But they do not have a right to unfettered access to me. I'm free to choose to set standards, and the standard of requiring them to have a second account if they both want access to me and to content I find deplorable is a really low barrier. And others are free to choose to commune with me in the spaces I want to spend time in, and communities are free to set their standards. I've not argued for censorship. I've argued for my right to shield myself very mildly from people I want nothing to do with, and for others to choose to do so with me. You're free to say what you want on your instance or those of people who believe as you do or are fine with your speech. Nobody is stopping your speech, just your ability to impose it on those of us who does not want it near us.
    - echelon 3y ago
      > No minds are "put in jails". I got banned from my city's subreddit because I said something once about crime the mods disagreed with. Now I can't enjoy a platform about the city I live in. I can't ask about restaurants, talk about concerts. It's frankly troubling. I posted something to /r/conservative once that asked them to be more inclusive of trans people. They banned me on sight, which figures. From that moment, I've been auto-banned from several trans and liberal spaces for posting in /r/conservative. I'm LGBT and my partner is trans. This authoritarian censorship is toxic and pervasive. It's just not right. Stopping the flow of ideas is how the pressure valves stop working. It's how polarization deepens and is how our democracy ends and authoritarians arise. > But they do not have a right to unfettered access to me. You can block me all you want. You can subscribe to a list of HN contrarians to filter forever. But you have no right to filter me from other people that don't willfully subscribe to your banlist. Lock yourself in your house all you want. You can't keep me from enjoying the outside public [1], from meeting people in the public, or from me seeing and meeting other people you've locked out of your house. Or even going as far as to say you can't lock people inside your house without their consent or knowledge. You do what you want in your house. But don't desire to make your house rules the default for all humanity. [1] "the public" is an allusion to a P2P, non-federated, user-first social media protocol. Something like email.

vidarh 3y ago

This, to me, is an argument against Nostr. To elaborate, I prefer that the barrier is greater.

saurik 3y ago
Because... you are terrified that you might manage to figure out how to access such content, and need to make it extremely difficult for you to do so, even on purpose? (I clearly don't understand.)
- vidarh 3y ago
  No, because I want to be able to choose to interact with people who are fine with there being barriers to similar types of content. If some feel they have a compelling reason to straddle both, they still can, so it denies them nothing, but sometimes even small extra barriers helps set a tone for communities.
echelon 3y ago
Why should minds be put in jails? Why should we segregate into like-minded and undesirables? We're better than this. I grew up with [x views, y political party], but because the early internet was open and accepting and not at all like this, I was able to see the broader world and wholly new perspectives. Now the bias is to shit on, shame, and block everyone. That's not going to build a better society. The internet pioneers would be aghast at all of the "happy little" censorship happening today. I've been banned from several subreddits for leaving comments in subreddits the moderators dislike. Removed completely by automation. They don't even realize my comments weren't in support of their favorite issue to hate on. Censorship is wrong. Put blinders on your own feed all day long if you so choose, but stop trying to put cages on other people's minds and voices.
- vidarh 3y ago
  No minds are "put in jails". But they do not have a right to unfettered access to me. I'm free to choose to set standards, and the standard of requiring them to have a second account if they both want access to me and to content I find deplorable is a really low barrier. And others are free to choose to commune with me in the spaces I want to spend time in, and communities are free to set their standards. I've not argued for censorship. I've argued for my right to shield myself very mildly from people I want nothing to do with, and for others to choose to do so with me. You're free to say what you want on your instance or those of people who believe as you do or are fine with your speech. Nobody is stopping your speech, just your ability to impose it on those of us who does not want it near us.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > No minds are "put in jails". I got banned from my city's subreddit because I said something once about crime the mods disagreed with. Now I can't enjoy a platform about the city I live in. I can't ask about restaurants, talk about concerts. It's frankly troubling. I posted something to /r/conservative once that asked them to be more inclusive of trans people. They banned me on sight, which figures. From that moment, I've been auto-banned from several trans and liberal spaces for posting in /r/conservative. I'm LGBT and my partner is trans. This authoritarian censorship is toxic and pervasive. It's just not right. Stopping the flow of ideas is how the pressure valves stop working. It's how polarization deepens and is how our democracy ends and authoritarians arise. > But they do not have a right to unfettered access to me. You can block me all you want. You can subscribe to a list of HN contrarians to filter forever. But you have no right to filter me from other people that don't willfully subscribe to your banlist. Lock yourself in your house all you want. You can't keep me from enjoying the outside public [1], from meeting people in the public, or from me seeing and meeting other people you've locked out of your house. Or even going as far as to say you can't lock people inside your house without their consent or knowledge. You do what you want in your house. But don't desire to make your house rules the default for all humanity. [1] "the public" is an allusion to a P2P, non-federated, user-first social media protocol. Something like email.