Except they don’t have the choice even if damus pretends to do it. The client has no authority over whether the relay deletes it or not. The best damus could do is hide it in the interface. Its a farce.
Discussion
Hiding in the interface would be a great first step. Then you could form consensus between agreeing relay participants to honor such requests.
Not saying Damus should do it but I think a client just for kids could. And could set default relays to those that agree to forget. With option to add your own relays of course.
All clients would need to implement delete for delete to make any sense. This will never happen.
Why? If most people use a handful of popular clients like Damus, I think it would be a good effort. Not bulletproof, but sufficient at improving discourse and reducing harassment.
how does it improve discourse and reduce harassment
Isn’t this the whole point of this protocol? I agree with Will here 🫡
when I first joined #nostr I thought that a delete feature would be good for a number of different reasons, but the more I use #nostr I realized how much it actually improves the user experience well holding people accountable
at this point id say the benefits of “no delete” outweigh the benefits of having the option
Same. I implemented it in damus web. I think it was a mistake.
How about calling it “Request deletion” instead of just “Delete”?
I remember seeing such an option in Amethyst if I am not wrong.
Thus wording makes it clear that we are only requesting and nothing more. However, like you said, the decision on whether to hide or not from client once such a request is given, is a tricky issue.
What does delete have to do with that? Delete =\= avoid accountability lol. Your keyboard has it 😅
This Deletethings is complex. Not only can't you truly delete anything, but you also risk opening Pandora's box with clients "delete". I am getting your point.
What Pandora’s box? How?
The client deletion thing you are talking about is off protocol. Technically, the client will just be hiding it from its user. It seems like a slippery slope imo did not that many advantages but yeah understand your point.
Imo people have a right to have their words forgotten just like the real world. I know this can’t be done on the internet but sufficient effort can be made so it’s not trivial to find things people said that they’d rather people not find trivially. People dig up all sorts of things people once said just to argue points or use for harassment. It’s probably even worse for kids not being able to delete anything you’ve posted.
Common argument is screenshot. True. But it’s not 100% guaranteed everyone is always screnshotting you.
Everything from employment checks to accidents sharing of sensitive information - no reason these things should live in the open forever.
Wrote more about this in a Habla article I don’t have the link to.
I respect what you’re saying here. Deletion is kinda an illusion on the Internet, but i feel what you’re saying.
The point stands though, it almost provides a false sense of security. I’m not sure it would actually contribute to solving the very real issue you mentioned.
This is the typical line of responses that I’m obviously familiar with and understand, but it’s an argument that basically says it’s all or nothing. But nothing in life is all or nothing. There are areas where improvements can be made. Saying it’s all pointless is throwing your hands up in the air and proclaiming “I can’t do it”.
I really do see where you’re coming from. The thing is, i very much see both sides. I know not having the delete has made me more careful, but accidents that could compromise someone do happen.
Your argument is that something is better than nothing, if i’m understanding you correctly, while #[3] ‘s argument is basically that he can’t make the guarantee that it would do the thing that the user would expect it to.
The flip side of it is also that the permanence also makes it less likely (in theory) for people to say things they might not otherwise say, while not allowing it to be deleted could cause someone to be harassed for something they regret.
You see why from my understanding of the discussion at hand, there doesn’t seem to be a “right” answer that doesn’t carry its own problems? It breaks down to a preference argument, of which side you want to err on.
I hope I have understood and articulated this well.
Yeah you get it. I’m not gonna die on this hill, or else I’d learn to code, make my own client and find cooperating relays.
I’m throwing ideas out there and if someone is receptive, they can act on them. If not, oh well.
I’m just not a fan of either or thinking where people immediate throw their hands up and have made up their minds on an issue they likely didn’t spend much time thinking about other than seeing someone they respect state something and nod in automated agreement.
I see from your response that you’ve at least given it thought.
I try, and I deeply appreciate the perspectives you bring to my feed. It’s one of the qualities that made me follow you.
I also agree that it’s one of the strengths of nostr, that ideas can live or die by merit. There’s plenty of ideas I haven’t seen born out yet, but I’m confident they’ll show up eventually.
🫡
Delete button is a shitcoin.
Client hiding something on their own, to be honest not comfortable with this idea.
if the relay honors it, and damus doesn’t honor it, then damus is simply behaving badly.
damus is disrespecting the user at that point
If the relay honours it then the note won’t appear in damus, what is the problem ?
The argument I’m making is that calling it delete is a lie, so i will not implement delete. I may implement it as “request delete”. But damus will not pretend it’s deleted when it’s not .
I respect and agree with not generating kind 5s. just a thought, maybe there is a way to display a kind 5 generated else where, sure there is more to pull down, and make sure that gets rebroadcast.
I could imagine an alternate system, where a user who does want to publish on a private relay, or delicate a certain relay to be their confirmation publishing house, where a user could request a check that the note is still “in print”. Maybe wouldn’t want to include that check in damus to remain light weight. Just throwing ideas around.
lol * delegate
Wait.
If the relay honors delete, then the client has nothing to display because the event is deleted, no?
If there is something to display then it’s not deleted.
Isn’t it more “disrespectful” for a client to say your data is deleted when it actually isn’t? You know like our data harvesting Big Tech services?
Maybe I’m not seeing the big deal here.
There could just be a delete micro-app where you give it a note id and it send the delete requests. Putting “delete” into the app is just way too misleading imo. Users will expect it to work the same as centralized delete, but it’s fundamentally different.
I like this idea and it’s trivial to build. I’d actually be surprised if it didn’t exist already…
😂 exactly
https://nostr-delete.vercel.app
It does have a faq explaining that deletes are best effort. The template engine just has this hidden.
It's not just a client issue. The user also needs to check their relays implement NIP-09.... not all do.
you’re confusing permanence with a lack of user control of their own data. nostr does not guarantee permanence nor ephemerality. you just hand your data over to nodes and they do whatever they want with it.
hopefully this will push people to realize the pointlessness of unencrypted notes and encrypted will become the default.
posting is just a “request” too though. and it also does not work like centralized posting.
damus doesn’t know if any relay will honor *any* request, right? why is a delete request special in this regard?