clients, specially open source clients, SHOULD have opinions.
And if you don't agree with them you fork and write your opinions like nostr:npub1t0nyg64g5vwprva52wlcmt7fkdr07v5dr7s35raq9g0xgc0k4xcsedjgqv did with Amethyst!
That's open source software doing what it's supposed to do!
I absolutely agree but I also think transparency helps us all understand these opinions.
yeah, absolutely, and if I had to guess, nostr:npub16c0nh3dnadzqpm76uctf5hqhe2lny344zsmpm6feee9p5rdxaa9q586nvr would agree with it
there is truth to the fact that we are all rushing as hard as we can to write these software we are all using and we often don't get to do everything we plan to do.
I don't know, but I would guess Primal will look into a way of exposing this information in a structured way.
Completely agree. We're all just blowing off stream here in hopes to right a wrong with nostr:npub1ezw0xm0w52rd4yfdg9zlw9qvwdy46alzelklkefptrd203m37tuq4djmeg
I know Miljan will make it right or at least let us know what's up.
We're building Nostr at break neck speed and we won't always get it right. But we'll fix it and push forward because we have to.
oh yeah, I fully agree with the nostr:npub1ezw0xm0w52rd4yfdg9zlw9qvwdy46alzelklkefptrd203m37tuq4djmeg thing, that feels like a total fat-fingering or something gone awry
Wasn’t that the whole point of #nostr, countless clients and relays where everyone can choose his flavor?
your choice of client is part of the flavor.
Specially when relays have yet to specialize significantly.
Yup, that was my point exactly.
Such a basic truth about nostr and very sad that it has been completely overshadowed by the bizarre attack on a developer about his good faith opinion on how to browse the protocol. "If you don't like the client, don't use the client" is so obvious it is almost painful to have to point it out.
There is a difference between opinions, a developers right to decide over the direction his project is taking and pure selective and manual shadowing of content or users while trying to keep it quiet.
no, that's part of the opinion
Amethyst did exactly the same with the opinion that (iirc) 5 reports of a user = shadowbanning.
It's an opinion, it's just in this case it wasn't automated (afaict) (yet?)
What constitutes spam or misbehavior is extremely subjective, just look at how spamassassin works 😅
are you arguing that developers have the subjective right to arbitrarily censor people without a reason, and saying some have already done so?
I love you Pablo, but I disagree with your take on this.
The opinion is filtering.
Whether it is done transparently and openly is not an opinion, it is a violation of a sovereign users trust.
The community made itself heard very clearly during the Amethyst incident that we don’t tolerate being manipulated by an algorithm we didn’t consent to.
I have absolutely zero beef with Primal or any other client implementing any algorithm they want to. I encourage it actually. We have a growing segment of users who desire it. My beef is that I used *both* clients for months without being informed it was happening.
Access to the source code is not adequate. We want mainstream usage, then we have to make informed consent in a way people without coding skills can understand a societal norm on Nostr.
And I’m sure that’s coming. Well, I’m not sure, I’m just guessing, but creating this tooling is non-trivial and if you’re reacting to the spamming of the feed you first implement the filtering and then, once your product stops being broken you go back and make the tooling to help people tweak the filtering.
These things just take time 😅
Censorship is not an option.
Censorship is innevitably an option. And we the users have the option of rejecting that censorship. Such is the nature of open source protocols.
yup
Those who advocate for censorship outside of illegality are advocating for the violation of others human rights and deserve whatever happens to them as a consequence.
Its easy to fix bugs in code. Its impossible to anticipate all the societal effects that your algorithms will have even though you implemented them to solve a specific problem. Its entirely naïve to expect developers to address or solve them all. Its an iterative process between the users and developers, one best walked without assuming malintent.
I guess, for the average user, the only option is switching to a different client. And it would be a good service to the users if the developers make this settings/opinions public and transparent.
for sure, and I'm sure that'll be coming
I think open public discussion is also important.
Firstly, users gain a better understanding of what they are getting & sometimes, it works, like when amethyst thing happened, it quickly made that filter optional.
Nevertheless, we are very fortunate to have multiple good client options.
I'm not sure the issue is with transparency, the code is open source and publicly auditable so I'm doubtful about code being placed maliciously or to be opaque. Whether that code is understood by all users is another conversation however. Users bringing up issues without assuming malintent should be how we start a dialogue.
🤝🤝
Yes they can have opinions, but free speech should not be allowed to be censored or squashed. And no one should have to create a fork in order to soeak freely. Thats not free speach; thats about having to go around the bans on free speech AND also having to give up your anonymity in the process.
I think we need a free market of structured app audits published by knowledgeable people on new app releases. Users would then choose auditors they trust and would be able to learn from them about the most important opinions that an app has from an auditor's POV. App devs themselves can't anticipate all the possible reactions to their opinion and trying to explain every line of code is a waste of time.
