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.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
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:
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.
@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.
View quoted note →
View quoted note →