Given the protection from bans this protocol enforces, can you reassure me that this is a suitable place for my hate speech

[wilcornish]

I hugely welcome the choice to make this protocol "censorship free" as this will allow me to broadcast to my audience a wide variety of bigotry and calls for violence!

Can you assure me that there is no way for my "illegal" messaging to be removed from your protocol, and that I will be able to keep hold of my audience regardless of my actions towards other users of the protoocl?

In addition, I'm planning on calling on my userbase to commit real world crimes; are you able to reassure me that those actions cannot have a ramification for my standing on the platform? I wouldn't want to be censored.

[bureaugewas]

There are plenty of tools law enforcers have to prosecute those who break the law. Censorship isn't the answer. Determining what constitutes bigotry and calls for violence is subjective, that's why we have judges.

Censorship isn't the magical wand that solves hate, it just moves it underground. The effectiveness of censorship on combating hate are doubtful at best, but the risks are dire.

[wilcornish]

For clarity, this is a statement that you will not remove hate speech or prevent users posting it from continuing to do so unless compelled by law enforcement?

Does this apply to law enforcement in any jurisdiction - would you withdraw from territories in which you would be required by a judge to remove speech or remove a user posting messages in opposition to something which you and your peers consider to be morally abhorrent?

[fiatjaf]

The protocol doesn't store anything. Relays store your messages. Relays are controlled by individuals and may choose to delete your messages anytime, with or without law enforcement, by any reason. They can also very easily block you or have strict policies for accepting new content.

[bureaugewas]

I am saying that if somebody breaks the law he/she should be prosecuted. And if somebody is inciting violence this should be judged in a court.

It's not that I don't agree that some things that are said online are abhorrent, because some things definitely are.

It's just that I'm not trusting a small group of random people to suddenly become the arbiters of hate and truth.

It's fine if you agree with those people, but what if their definition of hate is impinging on your political views? What is and isn't hate cannot be determined objectively and is therefore prone to misuse.

At least in a public court there is oversight and we can form opinions about the outcome. Censorship at a protocol level is much more devious as we will never know what is and isn't being censored.

And to answer your question, it's about holding people accountable for the results of their speech, not about removing it.