I tend to agree, and it is one of the reasons I only very rarely use Primal.
Maybe I misinterpreted your previous comment to be about Nostr in general, rather than just about Primal. I think what had me understanding you to be speaking of Nostr more broadly was these statements:
"@fuckstr is a failed free speech experiment."
This seemed to me to imply that because Primal alone determined to censor him, it has shown that the promise of free speech on Nostr has been proven false.
"Client-side censorship on a decentralized protocol defeats the purpose no?"
I interpreted "defeats the purpose" to mean "defeats the purpose of Nostr," the aforementioned decentralized protocol. The purpose of Nostr's decentralization is to be censorship resistant, but that is not the purpose of Primal, and I don't think they have ever characterized their client as such. That being the case, it only made sense to me to interpret your statement as referring to the purpose of Nostr in general, rather than Primal in particular.
Primal's actions can't defeat the purpose of Nostr, even if they censored every post that wouldn't get an "E for everyone" rating from the ESRB. In fact, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a client or two out there that did exactly that for those who want that type of experience.
Dikaios1517
npub1ku…v3lhe
2026-05-28 20:48:05 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…4776
Author Public Key
npub1kun5628raxpm7usdkj62z2337hr77f3ryrg9cf0vjpyf4jvk9r9smv3lhePublished at
2026-05-28 20:48:05 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "0549ba750b26b9804e3d81b22e2bf82f9795af0a3f9fcb60a446766e253d2b5d",
"pubkey": "b7274d28e3e983bf720db4b4a12a31f5c7ef262320d05c25ec90489ac99628cb",
"created_at": 1780001285,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"e5237023a5c0929e7ae0e5128d41a8213138400ec110dbe9d8a29278f22b7c13",
"wss://relay.nostr.band/",
"HelenYrmom"
],
[
"p",
"d9f2471cc8f33111071bd0de1fef87d783cc4140e0f70ba9298a53b9e07c60f6",
"wss://relay.tunestr.io/",
"FuriousHoneyBadger"
],
[
"p",
"d7100f9e3079cb803be226e198269bf9aa8d1e7576d7fbe27a009a3a1780be22",
"wss://premium.primal.net/",
"fuckstr"
],
[
"e",
"a4802227f741caf69532fc0c4d3042c5ef4e3af84c3e3d71731daa13b5117d6c",
"wss://nostr.vulpem.com/",
"root",
""
],
[
"e",
"64b4fc1b7e734f74e48d8be059e4aa2971bfae8114cee8ea0f50185acf02cb2a",
"wss://relay.nostr.band/",
"reply",
"e5237023a5c0929e7ae0e5128d41a8213138400ec110dbe9d8a29278f22b7c13"
],
[
"client",
"Coracle",
"31990:97c70a44366a6535c145b333f973ea86dfdc2d7a99da618c40c64705ad98e322:1685968093690"
]
],
"content": "I tend to agree, and it is one of the reasons I only very rarely use Primal.\n\nMaybe I misinterpreted your previous comment to be about Nostr in general, rather than just about Primal. I think what had me understanding you to be speaking of Nostr more broadly was these statements:\n\n\"@fuckstr is a failed free speech experiment.\"\n\nThis seemed to me to imply that because Primal alone determined to censor him, it has shown that the promise of free speech on Nostr has been proven false.\n\n\"Client-side censorship on a decentralized protocol defeats the purpose no?\"\n\nI interpreted \"defeats the purpose\" to mean \"defeats the purpose of Nostr,\" the aforementioned decentralized protocol. The purpose of Nostr's decentralization is to be censorship resistant, but that is not the purpose of Primal, and I don't think they have ever characterized their client as such. That being the case, it only made sense to me to interpret your statement as referring to the purpose of Nostr in general, rather than Primal in particular.\n\nPrimal's actions can't defeat the purpose of Nostr, even if they censored every post that wouldn't get an \"E for everyone\" rating from the ESRB. In fact, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a client or two out there that did exactly that for those who want that type of experience.",
"sig": "30aec1a2b2a2c7103a06c198d5578028a0339a2420155183da489939241274fe626f62a6c668101ceec941a113c7930f3e9d0a5af302a45419be647e659a5761"
}