Latest revolution.social with nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3zamnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wd3skuep0qyghwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytnhd9hx2tcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wvh8xmmrd9skctcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsqgrkcud2uwjfruweamz8ewshug5umfq38g9mkmn2u9mk6ajru2w2lga4r3k6 is out, great interview with Jillian York from nostr:nprofile1qyt8wumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyd968gmewwp6kytcqyqz47fweu5mtdh00aeu5q0hrpvq9zqv5ta2lrrecfyan3mkqzz0p66n7h64 .... But I've got my standard one-note feedback, and that's "what about Nostr?"
Mid-episode, a lot of the discussion around moderation of social media seemed to simply assume that there _would_ be moderation, and that the question was "who gets to make the moderation policy?", i.e. whether that's Stanford grads in Palo Alto or (say) the Burmese government.
This discussion was aimed at #bluesky, which obviously is still highly centralized, and thus can be regulated. But the question gets more murky when it comes to the #fediverse, and completely obsolete when it comes to #nostr.
If we really believe in a future of decentralized social media, we need to shift the question away from "who's going to moderate and how?" to "how to empower individuals, families and communities to build their own opt-in moderation policies?"
