pull down to refresh
55 sats \ 6 replies \ @Car 10 Jun
soo tldr? nostr is relay first, relays choose what to censor not user first
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @k00b OP 10 Jun
Unless you run your own or a more permissible relay and clients allow people to read your notes from there.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Car 10 Jun
soo clients have the option/or not to offer your relay to its users
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b OP 11 Jun
Yes, as fj says at the end.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Car 11 Jun
fiatjaf is fj does he go by that now? is that a thing
reply
3 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 11 Jun
Nah just my thing
reply on another page
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 11 Jun
deleted by author
38 sats \ 3 replies \ @rblb 10 Jun
not your relay not your free speech
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Car 10 Jun
makes sense or they can just go elsewhere and not get censored, thats why that aspect never made sense for me, falls flat in a post trump era, it was always about the zaps that got me to nostr
reply
7 sats \ 1 reply \ @rblb 11 Jun
I was just memeing.
At some point nostr will have some more direct or indirect replication going on, and thanks to the messy nature of the p2p internet, your notes will eventually reach everyone, no matter where you post them.
It is being used only at 10% of its full potential.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Car 11 Jun
haha, you got me
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 10 Jun
This will trigger people :)
reply
126 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 10 Jun
I think that's the point and a good point imo.
reply
205 sats \ 0 replies \ @LibertasBR 11 Jun
There’s a huge difference between allowing relay operators to define what content they want to host and being pro-censorship. Being decentralized by design already means anyone can create and maintain a relay, which completely invalidates the use of the term “pro-censorship.” It’s a poor word choice and was clearly intended to spark controversy by framing the text in a biased way.
reply