Oddbean new post about login | logout @Mike Dilger you are doing a very commendable job of "Good Cop". But someone has to be "Bad Cop", and I volunteer. What @brugeman is describing here is fine and good for a central server to provide, but it is simply contradictory and antithetical to decentralization. Decentralization and subjective experiences mean controlling what *you yourself* see and very specifically NOT controlling what others see if they didn't ask for this service. If I can dictate what notes other people can see (as replies to my posts, say), in a way that I have chosen and they have not (maybe they're following someone I have blocked and they don't see that person's note now) then I am superceding their desires of their experience and they don't own that experience any longer. Controlling what others see is fine IF they asked for it (either explicitly or implicitly by using an app or protocol or visiting a user-owned website). It's even good, if that's what they want. I have no interest in - or even the ability to - control what clients people use and what content they provide to a group of users who voluntarily choose to allow someone else to control what they see. This concept, as a "norm", goes in the opposite direction of the norms of decentralized, end-user-owned, subjective networked experiences. I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about it, but I am saying we should recognize very clearly what the topic of discussion is: Who controls what you see? You, or a filtering agent? If the latter, did you explicitly ask for the filtering or not? If you didn't, and you can't supercede the filter yourself, you're operating in a controlled environment and you better be aware of it. If that starts to happen transparently and without users' consent, you're headed right back to the hell we've all worked to undo. nostr:nevent1qqs8dhdzvhq42ymr8k9aw56lrehjh7q6zhv4fkxjzad0gxh5p3k8lhcpr3mhxue69uh5ummnw3ezucmvda6kgtnkd9hxuete9eu8j7szyqe4dhnpkwty0ycuazepgzet4wphuzqscrh4zka7jt0qyjqypw9a6qcyqqqqqqglvk36h
Better explanation here: nostr:nevent1qqsz7r6acy9e9gzlf7kcf29hyyw3nrd5uyx4uk8sx0cna2vs3sfjzgspr3mhxue69uh5ummnw3ezucmvda6kgtnkd9hxuete9eu8j7szyqh04fc4hw6xm4d7dd7634msqfndz9n5hyfms9u2mk6u9e3anpenzqcyqqqqqqgjkh8fp Do what you want wrt filtering, blocking, discomfort, etc. But do it very obviously and with user consent if you want to avoid stumbling blindfolded back into dystopia.
A good explanation, although the accusation that I was suggesting dystopian solution is false. I outlined why people want blocking. I didn't suggest we implement it, in fact that's so hard to do on Nostr it will probably never happen.
Sure, I understand why people want blocking. At the moment. Once webs of trust, sovereign, self-served clients, and personal relays reach their full potential, they won't "want blocking" anymore or even think about it. Even if blocking was somehow not difficult on Nostr-as-a-protocol (impossible, as already discussed), I would still rail against it as a norm and would encourage forking-away from anything that implemented it. It makes me uncomfortable that it's even perceived as being glanced at, side-eye. The fact that I can voice my opinion in a way that nobody except the listener can stifle is the reason we're here.
Mute is post-facto. Some people get so many replies that they don't want that mute isn't enough for them. They don't want to see them in the first place. For this we can/should have community mute lists (which some people are calling 'block') that takes input from labelling/reporting (NIP-32, NIP-56) and has community moderators, which are subscribed to by like-minded people. Those community mutes won't affect you and me because we won't subscribe to them, but for people who trust their in-group, they can have such group mute lists. Most people in those groups won't see most offending posts, so it serves their purpose. I just made a post going over many of the options: nostr:nevent1qqsvl4ylsr46mw426hzyjlffuw67vz7vqf7x0w2klgt6pmsm87u59wqpypmhxue69uhkx6r0wf6hxtndd94k2erfd3nk2u3wvdhk6w35xs6z7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpypmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjj7pvgtq8
In the spirit of good faith: nostr:nevent1qqsvc0m3hy25tjfkjdjl2cjq4yj4t0rhu53nhxmcadn4gnedzcw69tgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqv6kmesm89j8jvww3vs5pv46hqm7pqgvpm63twlf9hszfqzqhz7aqvzqqqqqqyu7e8yk Perhaps I misread @brugeman and he wasn't advocating this. Merely stating the desires of others. Other comments have me slightly unconvinced, but maybe I was a bit hasty.
A good explanation, although the accusation that I was suggesting dystopian solution is false. I outlined why people want blocking. I didn't suggest we implement it, in fact that's so hard to do on Nostr it will probably never happen.
Sure, I understand why people want blocking. At the moment. Once webs of trust, sovereign, self-served clients, and personal relays reach their full potential, they won't "want blocking" anymore or even think about it. Even if blocking was somehow not difficult on Nostr-as-a-protocol (impossible, as already discussed), I would still rail against it as a norm and would encourage forking-away from anything that implemented it. It makes me uncomfortable that it's even perceived as being glanced at, side-eye. The fact that I can voice my opinion in a way that nobody except the listener can stifle is the reason we're here.
Mute is post-facto. Some people get so many replies that they don't want that mute isn't enough for them. They don't want to see them in the first place. For this we can/should have community mute lists (which some people are calling 'block') that takes input from labelling/reporting (NIP-32, NIP-56) and has community moderators, which are subscribed to by like-minded people. Those community mutes won't affect you and me because we won't subscribe to them, but for people who trust their in-group, they can have such group mute lists. Most people in those groups won't see most offending posts, so it serves their purpose. I just made a post going over many of the options: nostr:nevent1qqsvl4ylsr46mw426hzyjlffuw67vz7vqf7x0w2klgt6pmsm87u59wqpypmhxue69uhkx6r0wf6hxtndd94k2erfd3nk2u3wvdhk6w35xs6z7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpypmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjj7pvgtq8
In the spirit of good faith: nostr:nevent1qqsvc0m3hy25tjfkjdjl2cjq4yj4t0rhu53nhxmcadn4gnedzcw69tgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzqv6kmesm89j8jvww3vs5pv46hqm7pqgvpm63twlf9hszfqzqhz7aqvzqqqqqqyu7e8yk Perhaps I misread @brugeman and he wasn't advocating this. Merely stating the desires of others. Other comments have me slightly unconvinced, but maybe I was a bit hasty.
Sure, I understand why people want blocking. At the moment. Once webs of trust, sovereign, self-served clients, and personal relays reach their full potential, they won't "want blocking" anymore or even think about it. Even if blocking was somehow not difficult on Nostr-as-a-protocol (impossible, as already discussed), I would still rail against it as a norm and would encourage forking-away from anything that implemented it. It makes me uncomfortable that it's even perceived as being glanced at, side-eye. The fact that I can voice my opinion in a way that nobody except the listener can stifle is the reason we're here.
Mute is post-facto. Some people get so many replies that they don't want that mute isn't enough for them. They don't want to see them in the first place. For this we can/should have community mute lists (which some people are calling 'block') that takes input from labelling/reporting (NIP-32, NIP-56) and has community moderators, which are subscribed to by like-minded people. Those community mutes won't affect you and me because we won't subscribe to them, but for people who trust their in-group, they can have such group mute lists. Most people in those groups won't see most offending posts, so it serves their purpose. I just made a post going over many of the options: nostr:nevent1qqsvl4ylsr46mw426hzyjlffuw67vz7vqf7x0w2klgt6pmsm87u59wqpypmhxue69uhkx6r0wf6hxtndd94k2erfd3nk2u3wvdhk6w35xs6z7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpypmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuetfde6kuer6wasku7nfvuh8xurpvdjj7pvgtq8