Nostr Web Client

Your first comment was about last word being a "bad idea" to you and that "Post + mute thread seems more healthy to me." Being more healthy or a good or bad ideas don't necessarily touch ethics.

My reply was about refraiming from determining "what's good for the user", which also doesn't necessarily involve ethics.

We don't know the user. We think we do. But in reality we don't. So, to me devs debating what is a good or bad idea "for the user" is silly. We can talk about good and bad implementation paths, but ideas are so much more than that.

In other words, using hex for heys was a bad idea, but it doesn't spur any ethical concerns. Lastword to me doesn't touch, change or impact ANY ethical position we might or might not have. It's literally just a way to encode a "mute thread".

hodlbod 1y ago

Hmmm I don't think so. Good and bad are value judgments based on a standard. How you treat others (the basis of my objection) is very much an ethical question. Even technical decisions are based in ethics. Have you ever heard of "five why's?"

- Why are hex keys a bad idea? Pubkeys and private keys should be distinguishable.

- Why? To avoid leaking a private key.

- Why is that bad? It compromises user privacy and control.

- Why is that bad? Lots of reasons, but one is that leaked DMs can threaten dissidents' safety.

- Why is that bad? We like and value dissidents because they protect our freedom.

It's ethics all the way down.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Vitor Pamplona 1y ago

See, you make it be about ethics. It's possible to turn any debate into an ethical debate if people want. I don't do that.

Hex to me is just an extremely wasteful way to represent private keys inside a Json. My position had nothing to do with leaking keys or user's misunderstanding what they have.

But even with the questions you describe, I don't look at them with an ethical lens. Users misunderstanding the features of the app is a bug and must be fixed. You don't need to pull ethics into it to answer these questions. It's just overcomplicating it.

I guess I am an ethics minimalist. I don't invoke it until it's absolutely required. Nothing is an ethical debate until it actually gets there.

hodlbod 1y ago

Yeah, I think this describes how we differ. It accounts for why I'm a Christian and you're an atheist (or agnostic? I can't remember).

The problem with not invoking ethics (or, really, ontology to bring it even farther back) is you can't ever find a complete answer to any question. With no fixed point of reference, there is no truth. In practice, we don't need to invoke ontology to have a conversation, because we have a functional shared worldview. The irony is that in order for atheists to argue at all they have to adopt a Christian ontology (or at least an ontology that accounts for transcendent reality). Without base reality, all propositions are relative, in infinite regress.

Vitor Pamplona 1y ago

Agree

I just ship stuff. People can decide for themselves if it is right or wrong.

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

I disagree with about seventeen things you said there, but I know you well enough not to argue any of those points with you.

#lastword

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

(I'm just joking about #lastword you can reply)

hodlbod 1y ago

Now I'm curious

Mike Dilger ☑️ 1y ago

ok!

- 17 was a totaly exaggeration for its humorous effect

- I think ethics are naturally embedded in every decision every human makes, so the argument Vitor makes I also disagree with, that you could avoid the ethical considerations, and so it's not what makes you and Vitor different.

- The fixed point of reference defining truth is the objective universe

- Atheists can argue withtout adopting a Christian ontology

- and the other things you said don't make enough sense for me to comment on.

I did a post on ethics just a few moments ago. It is my honest view of ethics. I might be wrong, but you could learn how I (and probably most atheists) see the situation differently than you do.