Oddbean

I don't think it's just about young authoritarians. On the web, the major way to get new content is to search for it or click through to it, which means you are unlikely to see unwanted stuff. With social media, centralized or not, anyone can push content upon you. That's the point of social media. But the result is unwanted content on your screen.

But then you don't need block. You need mute. You need spam filters. You need algorithms. You need to subscribe to censors who curate a "safe space" for yourself. Block is where other people cannot see your content. You don't need that. It's just 100% vindictive. It's not privacy, privacy is gone the moment you post.

Block may mean many things. If block is "blocked people can't see your content" then sure it's just not possible on a public internet. If block is "blocked people can't comment on your content" (which was mentioned in your quote) then it's not that simple. Website do have various forms of blocking (for comments, posting etc). Of course that doesn't "block" someone from commenting elsewhere and linking to your post, but that's a different thing. It's almost like people feel "ownership" of their posts, and when someone replies, they almost feel like people have posted "on their space". So even muting doesn't feel like enough, they want no one to see bad stuff "on their space" (in replies). They feel as if they were talking in a some cosy space and then someone intruded with their bad stuff. You'd be upset IRL if someone interrupted your conversation with some BS, even if your conversation was happening "on a town square". IRL you could tell the intruder to get off or you could go away and stop the conversation, but it's not possible online - they can keep yelling at you forever and can invite friends, etc. Maybe muting feels like not enough because if everyone can see how you're not responding (if you muted them) then everyone might think "if he has nothing to say then maybe their BS has merit". If you muted and not responding then for others it feels like you just have nothing to say, and that's not true. Maybe if there was a marker visible like "this person is muted by the person he's replying to so take that into account" it would help everyone understand the situation better and the urge for "blocking" would be lower. Anyway, it's definitely a mismatch btw what's possible online and offline. You wouldn't let some idiot follow you in all public spaces IRL and yell at you, you'd punch them or call police. Or you would at least try to let everyone around know that you're actively ignoring the idiot. But what can you do online?

I like the idea of a "muted by author" badge. That would make clear that a comment is not wanted here and warn readers to take that content with a grain of salt or even mute the npub themselves. We might need a mute for individual posts then or should we maybe use the 1984 reports instead?

You make good points. When I was thinking of "block" I was only thinking of not letting them see your stuff. I was not thinking about people wanting to control who can reply and in particular what their friends see underneath their post (which some people worry reflects on them). But that is a hard problem in a decentralized space, and muting can actually solve it if (as you suggest) people can see who other people mute and clients make this known, and people can borrow mutes from other people too.

Not only is it "a hard problem" and "not what you were thinking of", it's also a bad idea (for a social networking client). Maybe for a personal blog or something it would make sense for a client to not show notes inline that reference the original post. But I'm not convinced a relayed-note protocol is even the right choice for a personal blog anyway.

There's no reason you _should_ be able to stop people from commenting on your notes. Those are *their* notes, so of course they can write them. They're not *ON* "your" note. They're ABOUT it. Surely you're not saying people should get to control the topics and references others are allowed to discuss. Mute is the only option. Deal with it.

I didn't say we should stop people from doing something. I outlined why particular kinds of replies cause discomfort strong enough for people to be vocal and to even leave nostr, and how these interactions are different online vs offline. We can argue about semantics of ON or ABOUT all day, the discomfort doesn't go away from that. Mute is a simple first tool we've built (another one is reports), and even that one isn't utilized to it's full potential by any app. Declaring it the only option (especially as implemented now) is assuming nothing can be improved. The problem won't go away by itself. People will seek solutions. Some of implemented solutions might cause you discomfort, just like their absence causes discomfort for someone else now. Deal with it.

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.

You can't punch someone for following you in a public space, and the police can't do anything about that either. Following someone and speaking to them is not a crime. Both IRL and on the internet. You must develop ways to deal with it.

I didn't say blocking solves anything or is even possible on Nostr. I was stating the problem that people try to solve with blocks. But please tell me how I should "not allow any spammer to do that"?

There is no system - existent or future - that can prevent all people (with varying tastes and comfort levels) from ever seeing anything that is "unwanted" by each of them. Except for eyelids. But then you still have sound to worry about. If you think about this for even 1 minute it's a very obvious property of reality. Not just social media.

@Little Mikey D 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