I see a couple of problems in those points you make.
1) Human speech is messy and moral standards shift over time, over culture, and geography. Centralized content moderation, especially when involves grey areas, is an untreatable problem. You would necessarily need to pasteurize the entire humanity into a homogenous group to apply the same rules to everyone (forget about the right of Amazon tribes to live their lives in this case)
2) There always be a force for the existence of the State, because there always exist people that are entitled enough to think they have a solution for humanity's issues.
3) The next-door idea from centralized content moderation is to abolish private communication and End-to-End encryption. If we collectively think that there is no place on this Earth for X and Y, maybe there are no hard boundaries to where you can go to accomplish that pursuit.
4) The whole point about Nostr is that it's a censor-resistant protocol (or maybe fiatjaf (npub180c…h6w6) can correct me in that regard). We already knew that, at some point, the State would try to censor it, as they did with Bitcoin. We are removing the State's power of dictates what people have the right to say and we are not sorry about that.
5) Although I subscribe to the "free speech absolutism" ideal, I do think that we are going to avoid the amplification of most of the hate/discussing content in a decentralized way.
Gustavo
npub1gu…heczp
2023-05-28 12:23:04
in reply to nevent1q…xr00
Author Public Key
npub1gustav0kvwh9zlz22ns7y6utwt3s2747mh5s6ja7v622tl09megq9heczpPublished at
2023-05-28 12:23:04Event JSON
{
"id": "66461eef997bdd1d2285cb981213f977f49ebc5a6ea6656765aff1d616eb494b",
"pubkey": "4720beb1f663ae517c4a54e1e26b8b72e3057abedde90d4bbe6694a5fde5de50",
"created_at": 1685276584,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"63efaecdeca18f6600a8b2399c495a7c846db2c25e741a953098b9f5bcad9930"
],
[
"p",
"45b5c4ca911630ff356760e6e743e38881050a2539de71151d73c3f50a7bee06"
],
[
"p",
"3bf0c63fcb93463407af97a5e5ee64fa883d107ef9e558472c4eb9aaaefa459d"
]
],
"content": "I see a couple of problems in those points you make.\n\n1) Human speech is messy and moral standards shift over time, over culture, and geography. Centralized content moderation, especially when involves grey areas, is an untreatable problem. You would necessarily need to pasteurize the entire humanity into a homogenous group to apply the same rules to everyone (forget about the right of Amazon tribes to live their lives in this case)\n\n2) There always be a force for the existence of the State, because there always exist people that are entitled enough to think they have a solution for humanity's issues. \n\n3) The next-door idea from centralized content moderation is to abolish private communication and End-to-End encryption. If we collectively think that there is no place on this Earth for X and Y, maybe there are no hard boundaries to where you can go to accomplish that pursuit.\n\n4) The whole point about Nostr is that it's a censor-resistant protocol (or maybe nostr:npub180cvv07tjdrrgpa0j7j7tmnyl2yr6yr7l8j4s3evf6u64th6gkwsyjh6w6 can correct me in that regard). We already knew that, at some point, the State would try to censor it, as they did with Bitcoin. We are removing the State's power of dictates what people have the right to say and we are not sorry about that.\n\n5) Although I subscribe to the \"free speech absolutism\" ideal, I do think that we are going to avoid the amplification of most of the hate/discussing content in a decentralized way.",
"sig": "8e7831b372e2b8453d97f6f64c7c7c1e86c8e2cc58338e14fe274b909c7aeaa1048fb8814e121561a85f3e93ba060d942ff015a5dabfb82536e2e4e47948e65b"
}