- Note: "relay" is the nostr term while "instance" is the AP/Mastodon/Lemmy term. They are functionally very similar and offer the same abilities to ban annoying users from "public square" type spaces. Moderation works identically.
- In AP/mastodon/lemmy you are connected to one "main instance" and then connect to other instances "through" that instance. In nostr, you are typically connected to multiple relays and access content more directly.
- Nostr is an underlying protocol like AP is for Mastodon/Lemmy. The main use of nostr currently is as a twitter/mastodon clone, but it has other interfaces as well (calendaring, video sharing, etc) that I am less familiar with.
- Both networks are decentralized in nature
AP/Mastodon/Lemmy
- Instance admins on your instance and the instance of the user you are DMing can read your DMs, block them, or modify them without your knowledge or the knowledge of the receiving user
- If your instance goes down, so does your access to the wider network. It will take your DMs with it, and your identity.
Nostr
- Relays cannot read the content of your DMs as they are encrypted. They can only see that user A is DMing user B and approximate DM size. (This upgrade reduces that visibility further)
- Relays cannot manipulate DMs as they are encrypted and will fail a signature check
- No relay can prevent you from DMing another user as your client will automatically route the DM through another relay (unless that user has blocked you, which they can do).
- You can receive DMs from anybody as long as one relay lets your DM through (and you are usually connected to several)
- Your DMs and other content is replicated across multiple relays. Downed relay? No problem. You don't lose your content or your identity as your identity is a private/public keypair not "user @ instance dot com"
Bluesky
Idk anybody care to fill this section in?
Image source: nostr post
I have a hard time trusting something that advertises itself as "uncensorable". Good moderation requires censoring (and this is an okay version of censoring, it's not like your human right to be on a specific fediverse community).
Not being able to censor sounds like an easy way to become the nazi bar. Or in the case of nostr, I guess the blockchain/cryptocurrency bar.
Lemmy is "uncensorable" and offers identical moderation abilities in the "public square" aspect. E-mail is "uncensorable". Uncensorable does not equal unmoderated. It means if you want to publish something, nobody, not the even the government, can stop you (though they can throw you in prison but that's outside the discussion of protocol). It doesn't mean anybody has to choose to listen to what you publish. It does not mean relays have to include you in their list of public tweets. Relays can pick what tweets/etc they show. They can choose what goes through their relay. What they can't do is stop you and another user from using the protocol to DM each other. As long as one relay allows your traffic through, the traffic will flow. They also can't stop you from tweeting, they can just choose not to show your tweets. If I want to follow somebody, frankly, it should be no business of a relay operator or the government or anybody to prevent me from following them, just like it should not be the business of the government to decide what books I am legally allowed to read. By building networks which are "uncensorable" we can guarantee that it remains not their business for future generations. So that they can live as free, or freer, than we do.
The internet, as a structure, is "uncensorable". This is good. Power should be decentralized. The whim of a government shouldn't dictate how the entirety of the internet operates, and it can't. People in power love censorship, it is to their advantage that we are not able to organize among each other using common communication platforms.
I don't agree with that. ActivityPub includes methods of censoring and that is by design, for the purpose of moderation.
I can set up a activity pub instance. My friend can join. I can post something that he can see. And there is nothing in the world that can stop it. That is what ucensorable means. Any other ap instance can block mine and block any user(s) from my instance to "moderate" but they are not able to stop users on my instance from communicating with one another.
This is what it means.
Well if you're the one in control of the censoring (as the instance admin) and you only ever communicate with someone on that same instance, then yea obviously there's no one else to censor anything - you as the admin are the only person who can censor stuff in that case. But that doesn't make Lemmy as a software "uncensorable" (it's just that in this scenario, you are the one with the power to censor, even if you choose not to use it) and you can still be censored on other instances (which is the whole point).