Oddbean

You are supporting it. It's already on the public relays people are using. Nostr instructs that the content is not removed though, because removing content is apparently "censorship". As soon as you start saying it's fine to remove content, the purpose of the protocol ceases to matter and you may as well use http. And so as a result the relays are used by the existing apps are not moderated and so you literally share a platform with illegal content. This is not theoretical, illegal content exists on the platform and short of only using moderated relays that remove content, nothing can be done to stop it. It should also be noted that from a legal standpoint it's not just the relays at risk, if the front ends and apps support access to the it then they also have a legal duty to remove illegal content for any jurisdiction they operate in. I doubt "it's a protocol" will carry much weight in court when developers are defending their apps allowing access to child sexual assault images.

I don't know where you guys are roaming but I haven't seen a single pedo post since December when I came here 🤷. Nostr app devs bear the same responsibility a browser dev does. It's all you on how you're using the browser. And probably pedo posts are gov agents fishing 🎣...

No, Nostr app devs bear the same responsibility that app providers share. Snort for example is a social media platform. Anything shown on it is legally their responsibility. The law won't care that the owners try to claim it's just a protocol to get around having to take responsibility.

Nostr isn't Tor. And even then Tor nodes can and do make it difficult to access some illegal services. But it'll be funny watching the devs trying to claim "it's just a protocol, we can't be responsible for what's on it" when the services they operate are being used to distribute child sexual assault material.

Devs are not the guys who operate services. It‘s been a while since I used tor, but if it‘s hard now to find illegal stuff then a lot must have changed in the recent years. It wouldn‘t be funny. It would be frightening to see them be prosecuted.

In some cases they are. Snort I believe is deployed operated by the developer for example. It's not hard to find but node operators do try to keep the worst stuff harder to access and there's plenty of cooperation with authorities. It would be hilarious. I actually think it's a good thing when people who help distribute child sexual assault material are charged. Even better if they get full custodial sentences. So if you operate a relay that doesn't remove that or you run a website where relays that provide that content can be used, then you should be jailed. Preferably with a massive angry guy on a triple life sentence.

Apparently all you support is pedos. Bear in mind your arguments so far have been that you don't think censoring illegal content is a good thing and then that you think pedos should just be allowed access to child sexual assault material. To me it sounds like you're just trying to protect your own sick interests at this point. And to be clear, people don't have to subscribe to free speech absolutism to be free. We choose to live in societies and we agree to abide by common rules. In the same way you can't bash someone head in with a brick without repercussions, there are some things you can't spread without repercussions. The problem is that you free speech absolutist types take a broad concept of being able to say something out loud then you try to apply that to publishing and data transmission, things it was never designed to apply to, and you apply it to any company rather than just the government which is what free speech laws apply to. I'll make it clear. Free speech does not include the right to distribute child sexual assault material. If you think it does then you are a pedo and should hand yourself and your computer into the authorities.

Good luck in court with that one. "Nostr services only distribute the child sexual assault material, technically the original copy is stored on another service". It's not really hard to understand. Anything you see on a social media platform is a liability for that platform. If as a platform they shrug and say "not my problem, we don't moderate content" then they're gonna get crucified in court.

I am not a lawyer and I don't run a public relay. I also block anything I don't like client side. So, I don't personally have to bother with any of that. Feel free to comment on the liability of any service provider in regards to the facilitation and/or the distribution of illegal material if you are an expert. This would be useful for any public relay operators that read your messages.

Understood but I think you'll still be affected as it's an existential problem, the same problem that destroys all of the zero-censorship platforms in the end. The platform devolves into only the worst elements. The problem is with the absolutist idea of allowing anything and everything. Most normal people don't want that so it's impossible to gain broad appeal without some level of censorship.

Same applies to the apps though, if the apps allow access to illegal content then the apps are also liable. Which means ultimately the apps end up having to either apply censorship themselves before it reaches the browser or they have to only operate on nodes with censorship. At that point, what's the benefit of the protocol, other than being a really slow way to send information?