Oddbean new post about | logout
▲ ▼
miljan | 3 months ago (raw) | export | reply | flag +15 
 @rabble nails it here:
nostr:note14pa6uvtstc07dy3lhgmc49wsl8ak6pn3zqps4jujvyaq0alng9lqjp4ha0
nostr:naddr1qqyk7m3dv3jkcet5v5pzqak8r2hr5jglrk0wc37t59lz98x6gyf6pwaku6hpwakhvslznjh6qvzqqqr4guhze09z
▲ ▼
bitkite | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 SoonTM
▲ ▼
e33io | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 so was it deleted?  ..can't get the link to work
▲ ▼
xtogro | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 agree, that’s permissionless
nostr:nevent1qqsvrtpkydulaxpeq72ledfv7gvdgqzk2sh0snruza6p86rr0ah4amcrudl8x
▲ ▼
Joe | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 🫡💜
▲ ▼
JudgeHardcase | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag +1 
 I believe the ethical journalistic equivalent would be to allow the author to edit/delete content with a provided explanation for why (at the author's discretion) - with or without the original content included (also at the author's discretion).  

Even if the entirety of the resulting retraction was merely "the deleted content no longer reflects the author's views", it could signal the author's intent accurately while also maintaining the integrity of the public's perspective by reflecting that the content has indeed been changed.
▲ ▼
TKay | 3 months ago (raw) | root | parent | reply | flag 
 I also agree with this. It just makes sense. Regardless of what happens with the note.