I agree with you about user choice. I guess where I get stuck is the “replace the original post” part. There’s something about it that feels disingenuous, or maybe just less “raw”. 

If my client showed an “edited” note, with an indicator that it’s been edited, along with a way to view previously signed versions, that wouldn’t bother me the same way. 

As I’m thinking through this, it’s not that I have a problem with simply revising or improving content, but more with giving users the idea (similar to “delete”) that something they signed and published can ever actually be removed. That’s the part that feels problematic, the false sense of security it may give a user. 

This is true of the internet and digital information as a whole, of course. But that’s what is so refreshing about “no edits” on Nostr — the honesty about information (and especially signed content).

It sounds like what I wrote about “new versions” is actually how the edit feature would work. So in that case, it comes down to the client, and whether it honors the fact that previous versions were signed, if it hides/obscures past versions without letting the user know.