so … are you suggesting nostr users should be able to set “is trusted” on a followed account … or should “follow” list alone fine grained enough to determine these criteria for WoT. (Should follows count as trusted?)
Discussion
I didn't even have Nostr in mind, I'd like to think of WOT as an open standard every platform can adapt. Even Google (if they want to). And if you operate an own website, you could put that file there too.
And the relationship graph between individuals wouldn't necessarily have to be dependent on the "following" status at Nostr, but could be independently represented so that each platform could integrate it.
Do you know the old RDF format FOAF?
Yes. “Follows of a follow” is typically how nostr clients implement WoT, (among possibly other filters). Problem is that “follow” is not typically associated with “trust” in the social media paradigm. So my question … is an explicit (user defined) “trusted friend” flag needed to build WoT tools for (nostr) social media, or is “follow” good enough?
Follow is not enough. In a narrow sense, social media alone is not enough. The definition should be expanded somewhat. Like, Telegram and private chat groups on Signal are more 'social' than Nostr. Weblogs can be social too. They're even the first social media. Then think about email etc.
I don't see any sense in a standard that is narrowly confined to timeline-based platforms. However, as an independent, open format, it would make much more sense and would also be ready for the next big thing.
Private groups are coming to nostr. E2E encryption with no meta data leak. Already implemented in nostr:npub13myx4j0pp9uenpjjq68wdvqzywuwxfj64welu28mdvaku222mjtqzqv3qk . So … this would fit your bill?
https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/master/44.md
Problem is… nostr would still need a user applied marker for “is trusted friend”, because metadata is not available for querying “the people you engage with privately”. Though… a smart client could offer user option to “mark trusted friends based on your private messages” or something.
As I said, I don't like the idea of a Nostr-centered implementation. It would be a shame to artificially limit something like that. "WOT" means more than just Nostr. And Nostr isn't the end-all, be-all of wisdom. One should look ahead when it comes to such an important standard.