maybe I'm not well informed, what is the deal with these other clients? in what way are they not implementing nostr correctly? I feel like an open definition as any means that if these clients fail to provide the decentralization and censorship resistance, they will be abandoned eventually in favor of ones that do I guess your note landed kinda harsh, making it seem like there is "a correct" implementation. Although I subscribe to decentralization, I have strong reservations regarding dictating how "things are supposed to be".
I sympathize with your reservations, but disagree with this: "they will be abandoned eventually in favor of ones that do" This is not what happens by default, otherwise people would have long ago abandoned Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and so on and moved to Mastodon and they would be abandoning everything now and moving to Nostr. Although that can happen it's far from guaranteed and making people aware of the problems through harsh notes is part of trying to make it happen.
the personal cost associated to moving from Twitter, Facebook and the like into a different network entirely, rebuilding identity and audience, is disproportionately higher than moving between relays/clients/apps. that is one of the major accomplishments of the specs you defined. I mean, says so right in your initial proposal. what has happened by default with social networks is that users migrate or join the networks with more MVPs. ever since IRC channels, the oldest I can think of. but moving inside the nostr network should be mostly painless, unless you make yourself a subject to a totalitarian platform, which I expect to exist. and even then, as long as you hold your key, you might only lose data. you can pat yourself on the back for that, sir. this lack of friction is what enbolds me to say that people will abandon bad platforms, as long as they have an alternative. your protocol provides THAT, above all else.