Replying to Avatar Brunswick

The current follow problem that I have can be solved client-side; where one can see whether the follow is reciprocal (why doesent Amethyst have this?) and how long since that person has been "active." (e.g. likes, zaps, profile updates, posts, replies, etc.) Then it should be trivial to unfollow dead accounts and the follow-list is more meaningful.

The public aspect of follows has a wot side-effect, which is also a primary feature. When I'm searching for a profile, I look to see if anyone I "trust" is also following that profile. When people demonstrate they are either worthless or spammy, they tend to get pruned from most lists. The WoT score based on follow, activity & reciprocity has more power than it regarded to.

What a follow-based WoT means in the context of social media is whether the followed identity is likely to be authentic and of information-value, not necessarily whether you agree with that identity. (I follow nostr:nprofile1qqsx3tq0ylq9g5mha3h8ch8x4gkka792rmddc65v9law3mdq0un2llqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qcev0zp for god's sake)

This stuff about "not needing to press follow a hundred times" and "updating their follow list on the relay every time the button is pressed) has no traction in my mind. One can modify a client to batch follows, like in nostr:nprofile1qqsrjerj9rhamu30sjnuudk3zxeh3njl852mssqng7z4up9jfj8yupqpypmhxue69uhkx6r0wf6hxtndd94k2erfd3nk2u3wvdhk6w35xs6z7qgwwaehxw309ahx7uewd3hkctcpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsfrt6ps. What you are describing is personal feed curation, and many intend this to be public. Some people may want a public follow list, and several separate private follow lists (to avoid endorsement), but this is a power-user feature, and probably too complicated for the "average" person.

To separate the WoT feature from the follow feature is an interesting idea, but also likely to never be useful due to lack of use. Normally people have no idea whether a person they are following is a real person, or even an honest person. In that regard, a "trust" button would never EVER be used. The purpose of a follow-backed WoT is not to endorse, it's so others can see what you want to see, regardless if you "endorse" them or not.

> The public aspect of follows has a wot side-effect, which is also a primary feature.

I agree, but it's also too limited. Other possibilities exist and they're not being explored. Mainly in my mind right now is the idea that by following some relays you're open to see posts from people you don't know, and that you trust that relay enough to accept their judgement about who is a person that is worth listening to, and they can have clearer criteria more uniformly enforced, like "whoever pays", "whoever gets manually approved by such and such", "whoever has produced these many hashes", "whoever has a PhD", I don't know (of course since follow lists can still exist this can also be based on the current WoT criteria).

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Agreed. The ability to follow a curated relay output could be very powerful, but how is that different to the end-user than subscribing to a curated list published by individuals? One could pay to be on that list, in addition to being curated/endorsed, without needing the list owner to run a relay.

We already have that. Those are the recommendation lists, like the one Primal users are fed during onboarding. Or the follow packs, or shared lists on Listr.lol

The main difference is that a document (list) has no utility to anyone, other than controlling access. A relay is a holistic community of related services, that has limited/predefined criteria for access.

That sounds like a minor difference, but in practice, they're two completely different things.

a list ≠ a server

All relays have lists, no lists have relays.

I understand, but I still fail to see the vision of subscribing to a relay when you could instead subscribe/unsubscribe to a curated list (like a privately controlled hashtag, but for people instead of individual posts).