Trump enforcing neutrality on section 230 is going to be very interesting, because it would force platforms to not censor people for political reasons, otherwise they could be labeled as non-neutral.

So many centralized platforms depend on 230 to even exist.

There is still the issue of takedown requests from other countries, i wonder how that would interact with a neutrality clause in section 230.

It’s nice that there is some effort in law to reduce censorship, but it’s much cleaner to just enforce it in the design of a protocol itself. Don’t have to worry about the day to day changes in law and corruption.

Maybe nostr becomes even less relevant for the majority of people if our censorship resistance story isn’t as enticing. we should probably lean in hard to note verifiability and app interoperability. These were always the best sells anyways. nostr:note1akxnhg6hmlj7vjhv7jwrl2t4z935dhg4z6379fcshg96axcz3zfsnyxe5e


Twitter increasing (but not entirely) hands-off approach has already been sat play along those lines. Most people find it an acceptable trade-off for the huge userbase and reach.

Nostr-as-microblogging hasn't been nostr's most interesting selling point imo.(But I'm in the 'isnt this just bitcointwitter2?' camp lol)


Censorship ain’t going away


I've had the thought before that if the best attack vector for slowing Bitcoin adoption is fiscal prudence, then perhaps the best attack vector for slowing nostr adoption is reducing censorship.


Nostr might not be as appealing for us citizens (for now), but from the european and australian and canadian and uk etc. prespective it's an invaluable FU social network. That's a lot of people.


Definitely


Censorship resistance is the wrong story to tell. The story to tell is disagreeableness versus agreeableness. Build an agreeableness trending protocol and you get a new class of influencers. This is how you polarize the microblogging space to put a check on the radical idiots on both sides


Seems to me that this is likely a temporary reprieve if it goes through at all. If 2028 yields a reversion to the status quo, the censorship will likely return, but nostr will have had 4 years to be improved and built out and up.


Why would the incoming administration work toward neutrality? Are they predisposed to be the “bigger person” side? I don’t buy it. Just move to nostr.


Brave AI has been exceptionally good, I barely scroll down for links anymore.


True. Especially now since X has gotten fully captured by the State.


Fully captured now, definitely not a hands off approach.


we still don’t rely on any law for our censorship resistance. that’s pretty enticing to me. code > law


Yup, it's literally owned and run by a guy that's in the govt. And he wants to make it an everything app 🥳.

Nostr could be the public "everything app".


It'll be interesting to hear all the apologist trying to wrap their heads around it.


En el mundo real todo funciona como un reloj, cumples la ley, respetas la privacidad.

En la práctica surgen soluciones como Nostr.


I don't mind X or Musk. But that doesn't change how much centralized power this is.


Is Trump for Section 230 now? I remember back in his first term he was very against it.


Yeah, leave it to the algo so there isn't any human liability 😂😂😂 , or how about no 😂😂😂


Trump enforcing neutrality on section 230 is going to be very interesting, because it would force platforms to not censor people for political reasons, otherwise they could be labeled as non-neutral.

So many centralized platforms depend on 230 to even exist.

There is still the issue of takedown requests from other countries, i wonder how that would interact with a neutrality clause in section 230.

It’s nice that there is some effort in law to reduce censorship, but it’s much cleaner to just enforce it in the design of a protocol itself. Don’t have to worry about the day to day changes in law and corruption.

Maybe nostr becomes even less relevant for the majority of people if our censorship resistance story isn’t as enticing. we should probably lean in hard to note verifiability and app interoperability. These were always the best sells anyways. nostr:note1akxnhg6hmlj7vjhv7jwrl2t4z935dhg4z6379fcshg96axcz3zfsnyxe5e


I just meant in terms of moderation. It's fairly hands-off (relative to how it used to be and the major alternatives).


Note that Trump essentially threatened this the first time around.  His own Department of Justice determined it would require Congress to change Section 230 not to provide immunity from liability to platforms for censoring content they deemed to be, among other things, "otherwise objectionable" (effectively a green light to censor whatever they wanted).

FWIW, I agree with this law as written; but, would also agree that it should be rendered obsolete by ensuring censorship-resistance at the protocol level.


The government should not enforce non-censorship. That's absurd. It's unsustainable. Something will break.


neutrality laws are a double edge sword. They could also be abused for censorship (as they have been in the case of TV channels in the past). Government should stay away from this issue all together. Competition should be the safeguard  against censorship, not the Government.


100%

Communicating nostr censorship-resistance as first thing is not a winning strategy

nostr:nevent1qqsq86fps24rt7480tf7dr5mgtvp3ywt8hdslhfuv00wtspk2vetj7cprpmhxue69uhkv6tvw3jhytnwdaehgu3wwa5kuef0qgsr9cvzwc652r4m83d86ykplrnm9dg5gwdvzzn8ameanlvut35wy3grqsqqqqqp5p2stg


It’s nice that there is some effort in law to reduce censorship, but it’s much cleaner to just enforce it in the design of a protocol itself. Don’t have to worry about the day to day changes in law and corruption.

Timeless Automation of Basic Rights > The Whims of Current Politicians


I 💯 agree. Those were way better selling points than censorship free anyways.


Trump won’t actually make any real changes to section 230 just like he won’t change or repeal the ACA. Too much of the system depends on the way 230 works now. If you change it so platforms can’t remove or prioritize the content as they see fit then either the platforms become unusable due to spam and scams.


Trump meant that he doesn't want his personal partisan loyalists to be censored. He wants any media critical of him to be persecuted & prosecuted to the fullest extent.


It's true. Less censorship means less Nostr demand.

But politicians like window dressing. They say "no censorship" as a guise for more censorship, just in their favor.

Elon is the biggest culprit. He still censors lots.


Censorship resistance will be very enticing if nostr ever achieves a serious level of it.

Where are the Hamas operatives on nostr? Where are Hezbollah? These are a couple examples of groups much bigger than our infamous Twenty People Talking About Bitcoin Exchange Rates, and these groups would be here, but I don't see them because this protocol does not take censorship resistance seriously so far.

Your post, with you being a dev, further proves my point.


where are those? there are many who get blocked for criticizing some parties for example.


In a free country, shouldn’t platforms be allowed to censor if they want? Isn’t it the government that shouldn’t restrict speech?


in a free country you think you would be able to sue for copyright infringement on uploaded content, but section 230 protects platforms from this to some degree.

the idea is since they benefit from this huge government-granted privilege/protection, maybe users should have the same free speech protections citizens have via the first amendment in this particular case.

I am not a lawyer or that into politics, so I don't have a strong opinion on this, it's just an argument that I heard from a commentator.


no.
they uphold the rights of the individual, or they gtfo.


Interesting


If you come into my house and say stuff I don’t like, I don’t have to let you stay. Why is a company platform any different?


because your house belongs to you. a citizen. and it’s your right.
what youre suggesting is that a group of citizens has the right to override constitutional rights for profit. because youre money driven, not freedom driven.


I can’t figure out if you’re trolling.

I’m a citizen who owns a home. I also own a business that has a website. If I turned it into a forum I could absolutely block or censor speech I didn’t like, because I own the business and the website, just like my home.

Private property is private property, no matter the entity that owns it.


I think #Trump / the #GOP will chip away at #Section230 in a manner similar to how #FOSTA / #SESTA chipped away at it. So yeah, not a wholesale scrap and replace, but they’ll find a way to punch holes in it. 😢