@goindeep I think we both understand the issue. In summary:
Anyone can control what appears in their little, or big, domain.
If I chose to publish on your domain and you block my ability to do that, I can call it censorship. But it is a different thing for an authority (eg government) to force a third party to block all my content, or for the great firewall to filter it out.
The network is built in such a way that those approaches should not be possible. And that’s the valid claim to be censorship free.
If you take censorship free to mean that nobody can stop anyone else publishing anything anywhere (I can’t stop you publishing anything you like on my domain), you have both an impossible goal and an unusable network. Call that censorship if you like, but I think it makes the word meaningless.
It’s like saying graffiti artists are being censored because I don’t allow them to paint whatever they like on my house. Technically that is censorship, but it is ‘good’ sensible censorship, whereas when we say SAFE stops censorship obviously people will understand that we mean undesirable oppressive censorship. SAFE is about inclusiveness (everyone) being able to access and publish.
At the same time there is a grey area that people will argue over between what is or isn’t desirable, and we may need to have our response to that question, but we don’t have to take an extreme position. When the debate gets nuanced, we can safely point to the case where SAFE is clearly undermining oppressive censorship:
- ‘great firewall’ filters won’t work
- unassailable domain ownership
- DDoS immunity
- technically secure anonymity
If somebody says, but Patter took down my post, well that’s not censorship. If defeating censorship requires that you have control over what can appear on my Patter domain, we’ve just broken point 2., and you cannot have both.