I only partially agree with what nostr:npub1nxa4tywfz9nqp7z9zp7nr7d4nchhclsf58lcqt5y782rmf2hefjquaa6q8 said. In particular, he said "there's no instance that decides what's hate and what's not". I believe that is not correct. There is no instance that decides *for everyone*. But for example, each npub can decide what's hate from their perspective (and block accordingly).
Furthermore, since nostr is a free protocol, nothing keeps you from CREATING a new kind of instance that you trust to decide what's hate (or a certain category of hate) and relying on its judgment, for instance by granting it the power to block bad npubs for you.
In this particular case, this would likely be a group #Nostr ladies, who do have the lived experience of being harassed by assholes and creeps (unlike 99% of males who never even come across such a message). Such an entity could decide to "pool" their creep lists so that each member benefits from the work of the others.
Sorry if this has been tried before and I'm not aware of it.
Yeah I meant no centralized instance. I hope that was/became clear.
As I said there was an approach by amethyst. There's a kind 1984 (yeah, exactly) event to report users. There was quite some discussion about it back then. Maybe it could be used in some more advanced way, like giving users more choices who they trust in terms of reports etc. but it's in general the same effect as blocking users but by some automated way.
Interesting - but reporting to whom?
I don't think it should be to relays, because relays should be simple and censorship free. It's the wrong place to put this logic.
IMO censorship should be chosen by every npub individually (or by an entity that they explicitly empower to censor for them, and from which they can also revoke that power if it goes overboard).
Yeah, basically you are just sending an event saying, yeah that person did something bad. What happens with that event? Depends on who implements something to deal with it. In Amethyst (if that feature is activated) the client itself will hide notes from reported users by default if more than (I think) 5 people you follow reported that person (afaik it's still there but it has a warning on it and you have to extra click to show). Relays could use these events but I'm not aware any relay is doing this today. It's a fine line because users could "conspire" to censor someone from a client etc, that's why it was highly debated and I think it's not on by default anymore.
Do we have any web app thats displays reported posts? I don't know of any.
- A feed of recently reported users and posts (display posts, with report reason, aggregate multiple reports).
- An option to hide all the NSFW reports (those will be the most).
- A mute button, so I can decide if I want to add a user to my mute list, based on that report.
I'll build it next weekend unless someone beats me to it.
It could be DVMs, but clients would need to add support. People could send a list of trusted pubkeys to the DVM. The DVM would filter 1984 from these trusted pubkeys (there could additionally be default censors if people really wish for that, as long as there's a choice to use them or not) and then the DVM would return a list of people to the client to avoid showing in the feed.
(or the client does that but with Dvms you could take that to every client that supports that feature)
IMO the client / web app is not the right place to put it. It should be a service that you can subscribe to.
Ultimately not, but for me having an app would be first step to visualize the reports and get a feeling for the type of content, frequency, etc. that is being reported. I'don't think 5 reports from "friends" is the right algo, the block reason may need to be incorporated as well for example. I'm more in the camp of having some manual curation or voting.
I am not talking about 5 reports from friends.
I am talking about 10000 subscribers to "women of nostr" who collectively curate their feeds to not include harassing npubs.
And also about 2000 subscribers to "edgy women of nostr" who think "women of nostr" is too prudish, but still want to block the worst of the lot.
And so on.
I think the client is also the wrong place to put censorship. Censorship shouldn't be applied to the feeds of all users of an app.
You should be able to "subscribe" to censorship groups that are meaningful to you, based on your lived experience.
A woman who gets ugly messages from creeps would subscribe to a censor that is dedicated to detect that type of content. Maybe she also wants to subscribe to the shitcoin censor which filters shitcoin giveaway scam bots, but not necessarily! Maybe she's a shitcoiner and enjoys this content, and would actually want to subscribe to a censor that filters out toxic bitcoin maxis instead 😄
Censorship is great, as along as anyone is free to select which filters they use.
What's your take on this nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl ?
