npub1zl…22n8p on Nostr: **Aide-mémoire** **Starting point** Binary views of (de)centralisation are corrosive ...

**Aide-mémoire**

**Starting point**
Binary views of (de)centralisation are corrosive and themselves set up centralisation.
Your position: neither for nor against either extreme, because the model “the network can filter bad” is empirically a loser. Insisting on it for important systems is heroic insanity.

**Clarification**
Filtering any network *by the network for its peers* fails.
Who defines “bad”? The endpoints.
When endpoints actually agree something is bad, it already has little attraction or taboo power — so heavy filtering is unnecessary. The hard cases are exactly where agreement is absent.

**Shot / poison frame**
Banning or filtering is the poisonous chalice: you hold your nose, apply the minimum that can stick, and let the public (endpoints / market / demand) set the real level.
Whatever enforcement you run, life finds a way back to roughly the same volume. Absolute non-interference also fails; the equilibrium is set by attraction and workarounds, not the rulebook.

**Resource point**
Even filtering turned up to 100 % (full ban) wastes resources. Those resources are far more efficiently spent upstream — on the weaknesses left in people (and systems) — so large populations can be managed without constant, high-cost enforcement.

That is the thread so far.