It's apparently a not so important issue, probably already discussed, but: what do you think if your client switched from the "Follows" label to the "Contacts" label?
"Contacts" seems more immediate, also for not English speakers, it removes the follows/following possible confusing overlap, and especially it opens to a more interoperable scenarios (DMs, "other stuff" use cases, etc). I don't see any particular drawbacks.
What do you think?
#asknostr
Meh. They are not our contacts though. That implies some sort of dm relationship and that’s not what’s happening.
It doesn't imply any DM relationship. An npub is a form of contact information you are asking the app to save. "Follows" is just incorrect
"Npubs feed" is nice, but we don't have only feeds, often apps have hybrid features. And a generic, lowest common denominator can be useful, "Contacts seems and appropriate one.
Agreed
I also really like the idea of converting a follow list into a "bookmarked npub list"
So the follow button becomes a bookmark button, and the follow feed would become a "bookmarked npubs feed" but the wording would also make users think about checking on individual npubs one-by-one instead of just conglomerating them in a feed
I wonder what other suggestions people might have too, "follow" is psychological malware imo
For me reading someone writings, replying, reacting, zapping is a form of relationship.
And we don't have only social clients, we have many other, often hybrid, apps. The most used Nostr apps have DMs along the social feed.
I definitely don’t see reading or even replying as any form of relationship. Follow is very different to me and does not signal trust of any kind. I can follow just to see what a person is about without ever trusting them. Contacts sounds like we keep in touch and I added them to be in touch. But that’s not really why I follow - they haven’t earned the right to be a contact.
This is an interesting point of view, and we already explored it when WoT entered the scene: if you follow someone that you don't trust, with the current WoT implementations you validate him anyway, since he is present in your social graph. This is a problem, that probably lists could easily solve.
And if this is the path, "contacts" could effectively have a (minimal) trust meaning.
I can’t stop a client I’m using from renaming the thing, but it would sure be annoying.
Wot is also weird. I sometimes see people in my wot feed that feel like they are intruding in my space because I haven’t followed them. Other times it feels normal - depending on the mood I guess.
"Follows" is an idiotic word for people the app will fetch posts from in your main feed
"Main feed npubs" would be actually saying what the term means
"Contacts" is shortening it to a single word without being an idiot
I prefer contact… because it’s almost like verifying “I have come into contact with this persons keys” and have chosen to extend contact to them or not… if you follow them, you choose to be their contact and vice versa
If you follow eachother maybe that would be a “contact bond” or something meaning both keys verify and sign for eachother meaningfully in the WoT system- I trust them, they trust me and we have an established public social bond to some degree (a bond here just means I’d trade with them consensually in the circular v4v economy)
Idk if that will always translate properly on relays but the premium clients should manage this just fine because there’s enough shared coverage on the default relays and/or outbox model
I like this point of view.
Every normie with a phone knows the difference between following and followers. Followers and Contacts sound like completely different things. But the word "Follows" is indeed confusing since nobody uses it.
> Every normie
I'm not sure about that; you should take in consideration different generations and people that don't care about social networks.
> "Follows" is indeed confusing since nobody uses it.
And should we use it?! :)
I've never liked the idea of ​​followers. For me, changing it to contacts makes sense if I "follow" and "they follow me." On Twitter, it also served the purpose of indicating how DMs could be exchanged.
Regardless of the name, would it be possible to make it optionally displayed?
I like it, it's simpler and more direct... it's more Nostr!
I know Vitor is working on that, and this partially validates my view.
A more generic and flexible cross-nostr-applications term can be useful to promote interoperability.
They are not the same thing:
- follows are usually understood to be public
- contacts shoul be absolutely private
Actually a traditional contacts list (e.g. phone) is usually private, but I don't see it as mandatory.
Exactly:
- my phone contact list is private
- my mail contact list is private
- etc.
- my twitter follow list is public
You can change their name, but those names have already different privacy expectations.
I think expectations are changing. I don't consider anything private without an explicit label ("private/encrypted"). So I would expect "Private contacts".
I don't really like the "follow" wording but contacts is not it. It will also bring even more confusion to beginners who already understand the concept of follow. Not worth it imo.
