ExploreTrendingAnalytics
Nostr Archives
ExploreTrendingAnalytics
weev21d ago
no. Look at the powers I just delegated to it. They only get two powers: 1) to remove censorship by designating a legitimate person engaged in good faith posting as not a spammer and asking subscribing clients to disregard posts against them when determining WoT weights 2) to remove the capability for singular accounts to mark others as spammers, and asking subscribing clients to disregard their graph data when determining WoT actions. They are not allowed to censor. They do not have the ability to censor anyone. There is still not centralized authority that can call someone spam. They can only stop someone from being labeled a spammer maliciously. It’s a reverse RBL.
💬 1 replies

Thread context

Root: 00074be37891…

Replying to: 677f44db3022…

Replies (1)

Raison d'État21d ago
Not useful for censorship directly, you're right, but potentially quite useful for advantaging malicious favoured accounts, and for burying disfavoured accounts under a "slide" of autogenerated/spam content. But I suppose if we had multiple "free speech authorities" setup as DVMs clients could query, this could still be a net plus...
0000 sats