Anyone who states that removing CSAM is censorship is saying that free speech protects CSAM.

Do you believe that absolutely nothing should be able to be removed from the Nostr network, or do you believe that there are limits on what should be allowed?

Here's one such example where the person believes everything including CSAM is in scope of "free speech"

https://void.cat/d/UQrEHp7D2TbX8MeqUSPKRv.webp 

 So IS CSAM being hosted directly on the nostr relays? 

 It's certainly being served up by Nostr applications, distributed through messages and allowing the tipping between pedos on the platform. Most of the services also use some form of image proxy too, which means that every time they serve a CSAM image they are "making indecent images" as under the law, creating and serving a copy is making an image.

By the way, it's funny how a minute about you were going "this is bullshit" but withing one post you've already turned into a pedo apologist, trying to justify why CSAM should not be removed from the platform.

You're sick. Seek help you fucking freak. 

 So no. The relays don't host it.  The clients simply render images.  And you'd rather control the clients and relays than go after the file hosts.  Smart!

I have been here for months.  I've not come across any of it.  Nor have I seen anybody  support it.  

What I have seen is assholes saying the government should have a built in killswitch to censor speech they don't like under the guise of protecting the children.

That is your solution right?  Allow the state to kill clients or relays arbitrarily, and then hope they don't use that power for their own benefit, right?

Very smart!
   

 I'd rather child sexual assault material is removed from the network and pedos are not able to use it to distribute and tip each other for content. That means going after hosts of images, relays serving the content (oh and FYI, it is entirely possible for relays to host images directly).

Not only have I reported apps to the IWF and seen multiple people supporting it, you took all of one comment to shift to a position that you're defending networks distributing it.

I think all networks should abide by the national laws in the jurisdictions they operate in. I think that by refusing to censor anything, the future of Nostr is at threat because no normal person is going to stick around contributing to platforms that enable pedos and other abhorrent users. 

So I think that ultimately if you stick to you "censor nothing" guns then this platform will do the same as every other decentralized platform and end up as a circlejerk of a few hardcore supporters and a bunch of people too abhorrent to go anywhere else.

Remember, normal people don't have the same incentive to seek out a zero censorship platform because most of them don't have a problem on regular social media platforms as they don't spread illegal content. I've never once been banned from any social media platform.

I think the state will kill clients and relays anyway, and when you support them distributing CSAM you make it significantly easier for government to do so. If you really wanted to stand up to government overreach you'd try to stay within the law so that at least you can get public support. But if Nostr relays and apps get pulled into court for distributing CSAM don't expect people cheering for your side besides NAMBLA supporters. 

 Not without measures that would be seen as censorship. The relays would need to agree to remove events and relays that refuse would need to be removed from the network.

On an application level the applications could filter things out too, but even that would only be client side and would be seen as the apps applying censorship across nodes.

The thing is, decentralized zero-censorship platforms have been tried before and they all end the same way. Normal people leave because they get tired of muting abhorrent content and don't benefit from the zero censorship, and platforms distributing the apps pull them for failing to adhere to ToS (Both Apple an Google stores require apps to be able to moderate user-generated content for example).

The thing is, I don't think Rowan Atkinson is a complete free speech absolutist. I think he accepts that some things are too abhorrent to be allowed. I think like most sensible people he believe there's should be balance somewhere he's just not supportive of what he sees a government overreach.

I think in general people should have free speech, but I think there has to be a line, which is usually defined in law. If we want more freedom of speech we should challenge unjust laws as Rowan Atkinson did. I don't think that platforms that simply ignore all the laws and try to help people get around them help the situation at all.