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".
fiatjaf /
npub180…jh6w6
2025-04-27 01:30:41
in reply to nevent1q…u660
Author Public Key
npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6Seen on
wss://relay.damus.ioPublished at
2025-04-27 01:30:41Event JSON
{
"id": "ab65746042e4817acaa490bf9a6d1330fe41f74af69c1ebf086748874b863715",
"pubkey": "3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d",
"created_at": 1745717441,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"2efaa715bbb46dd5be6b7da8d7700266d11674b913b8178addb5c2e63d987331",
"",
"vinney"
],
[
"p",
"609f186ca023d658c0fe019570472f59565c8be1dc163b1541fac9d90aa4e8af",
"",
"jsr"
],
[
"e",
"2381e80fcaa5b7bcc84f8a6c5c05e35c9e4091972237e59c0d3d28173532a1e2",
"wss://inbox.relays.land/",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"1fe881c1f50e387d95cc4ec0df4f2364aa7b6c69c43c6c061412c2535b30d18b",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"e0d27c7bd8d5fd1677b56ea2d9008a7ca67adbdd6b0fdef53fef40c28f5f84e2",
"",
"mention"
],
[
"e",
"1b770a733c34b28f3c9e4afba09539b04e5c5b8c8c0693f3b8bd61b46fe84a7a",
"",
"reply",
"2efaa715bbb46dd5be6b7da8d7700266d11674b913b8178addb5c2e63d987331"
]
],
"content": "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?\"\n\nThe concept of free speech is nonsensical by itself anyway and no one should ever use it.\n\nBasically 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.\n\nMy 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.\n\nNow, 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\".",
"sig": "ae62c89fe069bf31b90af94b56443cb2dd8812b8dedbcd49f57cb0d5c6b3f7915bf125bf848238f5658057e156f57427bf886e21918ae4dec19b12b7ff65f678"
}