Censorship-free implies that moderation is impossible. If you don’t have moderation, your social media will turn into a Nazi bar.
you can just hide messages from selected users in client
That’s not good enough. First of all, users don’t want to have to block people before having a good experience. Users don’t want to deal with moderation themselves, but they also don’t want mean people, harassment and nazis. It’s not easy to recruit moderators for online forums, not a lot of people want to deal with that stuff.
But secondly, client-level blocking is not effective. It does not stop those bad users from continuing their bad behavior. In the case of Lemmy, it also doesn’t stop their votes from still affecting your feed.
So yes, censorship-free platforms are not good because censorship-free means moderation-free, and users don’t want that.
I think you (and the Nostr people as well) are just muddling terms here. Censorship is about an external 3rd party (usually the Government) preventing you from seeing things you are potentially interested in, not (as in the case of Lemmy) your service provider and their trusted moderators helping you curate your social media experience. If you are unhappy with the moderation you can easily switch to another instance and use other communities.
I mean I don’t disagree, but that’s clearly not what Nostr means when they say censorship resistent, cause by that logic, Gmail and Facebook are as censorship resistent as Nostr is.
I don’t think there really is a great difference either. Censorship and moderation are just two perspectives on the same thing. One has bad connotations, the other generally good connotations.
I disagree, and Gmail and Facebook do engage in censorship by hiding stuff the advertisers that pay for it don’t want you to see or be themselves associated with. That’s not even close to what moderation is and confusing the two things as “just two perspectives” is not helpful at all, as you end up justifying censorship through that.
First of all, users don’t want to have to block people before having a good experience.
In general conversation in distributed protocols is opt-in, not opt-out. If you see something you don’t like in Briar/Tox/Jami, then it is only because you actively seek it.
Okay, but that is not how the fediverse/Lemmy works at all and I don’t think Nostr works that way either. You can easily see content that you did not explicity ask for (i.e. comments/posts from any user) and I don’t think Nostr is different in this aspect (though I could be wrong).
Censorship-free implies that moderation is impossible. If you don’t have moderation, your social media will turn into a Nazi bar.
That’s not good enough. First of all, users don’t want to have to block people before having a good experience. Users don’t want to deal with moderation themselves, but they also don’t want mean people, harassment and nazis. It’s not easy to recruit moderators for online forums, not a lot of people want to deal with that stuff.
But secondly, client-level blocking is not effective. It does not stop those bad users from continuing their bad behavior. In the case of Lemmy, it also doesn’t stop their votes from still affecting your feed.
So yes, censorship-free platforms are not good because censorship-free means moderation-free, and users don’t want that.
Worse, it will immediately devolve into a CP haven. The dark web is dark for a reason.
Yeah. The reason is Google doesn’t care about them.
I think you (and the Nostr people as well) are just muddling terms here. Censorship is about an external 3rd party (usually the Government) preventing you from seeing things you are potentially interested in, not (as in the case of Lemmy) your service provider and their trusted moderators helping you curate your social media experience. If you are unhappy with the moderation you can easily switch to another instance and use other communities.
I mean I don’t disagree, but that’s clearly not what Nostr means when they say censorship resistent, cause by that logic, Gmail and Facebook are as censorship resistent as Nostr is.
I don’t think there really is a great difference either. Censorship and moderation are just two perspectives on the same thing. One has bad connotations, the other generally good connotations.
I disagree, and Gmail and Facebook do engage in censorship by hiding stuff the advertisers that pay for it don’t want you to see or be themselves associated with. That’s not even close to what moderation is and confusing the two things as “just two perspectives” is not helpful at all, as you end up justifying censorship through that.
In general conversation in distributed protocols is opt-in, not opt-out. If you see something you don’t like in Briar/Tox/Jami, then it is only because you actively seek it.
Okay, but that is not how the fediverse/Lemmy works at all and I don’t think Nostr works that way either. You can easily see content that you did not explicity ask for (i.e. comments/posts from any user) and I don’t think Nostr is different in this aspect (though I could be wrong).