Funny memes aside, this isn't true. If you want to use likes and reactions, you move to a client that has those feature still. You can also fork or clone the code and fix it or run it yourself. Everything is open. This openness prevents censorship. This is the beauty of open source software and open protocols.
#[0]
this is exactly the same as "I don't want to see those posts on my feed and that's not censorship" defense. or "ordinals of Bitcoin"
we have a problem on the concept of censorship
If itās only about your own experience, then itās all good. Your client can choose to ignore notes for any reason.
The problem is when your preferences as a publisher affect your readers scope of actions. For example, if you have OnlyZaps enabled, and the client then hides the like button for readers of your post.
Of course, readers can switch clients. The point of my meme is that imposing the authorās zap preference on readers is an attempt at censorshipācensoring readersā reactions.
Nostr Improvement Possibilities are not required, they're just possible. Meaning a client can implement that feature if they want to do that.
I want Lists dammit! But because Amethyst and Snort doesn't have them doesn't mean that they're censoring me from grouping people together. I can just use Coracle or NostrGram if I really want that feature.
Does that analogy help?
We do have a problem with understanding censorship or muting. People don't seem to understand that me muting someone doesn't censor them at all. We're both free to continue on as we please. I'm free from their content that I don't want to see and they're free to continue to post said content. It's glorious. We both win! š«š
Agreed that muting is not censorship. Muting is about what you see. Censorship is about what others see.
Some clients (Damus) are starting to honor authorsā OnlyZaps preference by hiding the like button from readersāpreventing the reader from posting likes or seeing like counts.
The user can switch clients, of course. But what Damus is doing, via OnlyZaps is censorship because it hides information from readers arbitrarily based on the authorās preference (not the readerās preference).
Astral.ninja NEVER implemented likes. That's not censorship. The developer just doesn't like likes. It's not a requirement. Reactions are just a possibility.
To be super clear:
- A client not implementing a feature at all is NOT censorship.
- A client implementing a feature that gives a user the ability to filter their own experience (mute) is NOT censorship.
IMO:
- A client filtering content for one or more users based on the arbitrary preferences of another party IS censorship.
This is what Damus is doing. If the author has enabled OnlyZaps, readers are unable to post or see reactions on that authorās posts. This is censoring content from the reader at the discretion of the author.
Thank you for clarifying. š¤
If the reader wants to provide the author with a reaction and the reader has them turned off, then the reader will need to go to use a client that supports the feature that they want.
Client devs will have to consider these situations, that making certain changes may make some users unhappy and those users will seek out other clients that meet their needs. This is the free market at work though, right?
Related, I am thinking about using Coracle full time on the web over Snort just because I want Lists and Coracle has that feature.
Imagine fighting for something as meaningless as a like that provides zero signal
My reactions provide signal to me. My later self, to be specific. Have I seen this before? Did I like it then? These are questions answered by reactions (likes), even if no one but me ever sees them.
š
In this case then I'd recommend doing 1 sat Zaps or using a client that implements features that you want. We have a lot of choices š¤š»
Sure thing. I agree that client choice exists and that itās a compelling feature of the nostr protocol and network. Competition among clients and relays is why nostr will win where other Twitter competitors have failed. š¤
My objective with my meme was to raise awareness of the issue. My hope is that Damus will offer me an option to ignore the authorās preferences with respect to my ability to post kind=7 notes. If not, Iāll find another client (or make one).
Currently, to my knowledge, Damus is the only iOS client not relegated to Test Flight. Hopefully thatāll change soon.
no. such approach derail the issue. you do have a censorship approval mentality if you re into censoring "yourself" from others. (we all know you re censoring others) in that REGARD you can't be trusted when it comes to defending censorship resistant anything because no one can tell your approval will expand or not in the future. (by you I mean anyone)
"ordinals of Bitcoin"... we are all for freedom, no masters, self sovereignty yada yada but still keep the artifacts of fiat world with us. "you can't keep your jpegs on my node"
we don't have a problem on censorship mentality, we have a problem on freedom mentality. like it's engraved on the bones
so you're saying that people have the right to say whatever they want, but they don't have the right to see whatever they want? so in a 2 party situation, only one person is allowed to have freedom? that doesn't seem right to me.
I just closed a tab in my web browser, essentially censoring that web page from providing content to me. šŖ
yeah.. who cares what you individually do? make filters on relays and start mass muting. where will that lead you? in the end, with this mentality, censorship, freedom all become a bunch of words to sell new age wokeness. nothing more
Youāre right that the censored parties can switch clients. I did not mean to imply that the censorship would be successful.
š«
Exactly. Damus is a great client, but there is no ācritical massā that allows it to enforce its will onto the system. People can change clients and Damus can decide if it wants to change features.
Agreed. I do not think the censorship will be successful.
I think we are so used to not owning our own posts on social media that we feel entitled to like notes. But since you own your notes on nostr, you should be able to choose how people are able to react to it. Notes are your property. On twitter you can like posts because Twitter says you can. On nostr you can like notes only if the user says you can.
But we donāt own our notes? What does that even mean. We sign them, so they canāt be changed but then they get sent out for relays, other people, etc to do whatever they want with them. Once you put it out there, all people can do is verify you actually said it, but thatās it.
Isnāt your argument the same thing as asking someone not to say something to offend you? Youāre trying to control other people here. In fact people arenāt āliking your noteā instead a ālikeā event is broadcasted that says a person liked a particular note id, so their ālikeā is entirely separate from your ānoteā, it just refers to it
Iām not trying to control anyone. Part of the reason Iām not doing only zaps is that I donāt want to force people to pay me sats if all they want to do is acknowledge they agree with me or like my post. But thatās my belief, and I still think people should have control over how their own posts are interacted with.
If someone says something that offends me, I mute them, simple.
My understanding of ownership in this context is that you own all your data/events here, no one else owns it, thatās why youāre able to move from one client to another since all your data/events are just tied to your key pair. Since you own your data you should be able to say how others interact with it, which only zaps allows for.
I was with you until here āSince you own your data you should be able to say how others interact with it, which only zaps allows for. ā
I disagree - you can control how you see their interactions with your notes, but you canāt control their interactions.
And itās not really āowningā in the traditional sense. They have copies of it just like you do, itās just proved that it came from you.
And if you donāt back up your posts, and relays donāt save them, you wonāt take them anywhere because they donāt exist anymore.
Yeah, these are fair points. I suppose an argument can be made that if an interaction is an event, and, with my understanding of ownership, you own all your events, then not allowing likes is limiting someoneās ability to write an event. I guess if we donāt like it we can just go to a different client that doesnāt support onlyzaps.
All I know is that Iām keeping onlyzaps turned off on Damus.
Yeah Iām not sure what Iām going to do yetā¦ at this point Iād like to support whatever helps Nostr grow the most
