silly you even would use damus in this example, it shows how little you are aware of how ios works. there is an app store, and NO WAY to sideload. and it's also for adults only, and its likely to just be pre-emptively removed from the UK vs. anything else by damus itself or a non-approval bottleneck.
apple will face ID the entire UK via their app store and there you go.
People use Apple? Sorry yeah I'm out of touch
oh, maybe you meant notedeck. well, yeah. i'd go into it more but, i'll let you cook on it for a bit. person sees thing, where did thing come from? the app. where do the most people see the thing from? the apps. how do you prevent the most people from seeing the thing?
...
Ok yeah notedeck. Upon installation I can choose to sign in. In theory it would fetch my NIP-65 event and display the relays I have already chosen across the nostr relays.
Since it didn't support outbox last I checked, I believe I was able to control the relays in an outdated manner. The user has control of the content displayed.
If I'm wrong then it only had 5 preset relays which could not be changed and would thus make your argument true. Because if the user is exposed by default with no option to change the relays then it becomes a direct service of those relays
But notedeck is allegedly designing to be more in line with other clients where I don't see this being a problem.
did the app show the user the available terms for all the relays it connected to? no.
think man, you're dragging off the point here.
This would seem logical but I can use a nostr client to connect to relays which offer no terms. Which is why operators will be targeted for allowing publicly-available content to be accessed. The clients have a role in this but can defend themselves legally by agreeing to change if the courts decide they are culpable. It feels the question we should be asking is- is there no NIP for ToS agreements?
Agree with what Semisoul said below. Yes Damus was a prime example of a client-relay dependency. But this is where Notedeck does seem to be different in the same regards.
if the user can enter any relay address they want, including, like is common in japan, simple IP addresses, those bureaucrat's can't compute this, so they are just gonna blanket ban nostr clients from mobile app stores.
if there is no client, there can be no access to relay.
bureaucrats are not programmers. they are firstly thinking only:
people only use mobiles
web apps are already covered by age requirements in many places
policing web apps out of jurisdiction is going to be extremely expensive for a lot less show and bluster than just blocking social apps
if they do decide to start playing that game, their target audience is people who are already using open platforms and may have moderate technical knowledge and off they go to get VPNS and now while the politician appears to have "protected the children" all they have really done is cover up the "problem" and done their victory laps because politicians have tried the great firewall game a few times and it has never been very successful. the campaigns have been very unpopular because only china does this shit. and apparently, children don't use computers.
so, yeah, the whole point of nostr:npub10npj3gydmv40m70ehemmal6vsdyfl7tewgvz043g54p0x23y0s8qzztl5h 's OP is about the fact that mobile devs are going to be the first on the chopping block for being locked out of mobile platforms
the digital rights mob will just keep hammering at the alt app systems, and campaigning against the policy decisions of apple and encouraging people to ditch them, which they won't, because they are hypnotized zombies and i wuv my apple bro don't hurt my brain.
politicians are lazy. that's why they are politicians. if they can get a big fluster over anything to appease some squeaky wheel they are gonna do exactly what is demanded, by said squeaky wheels, which are mostly nosy karens who bewieve in pwoteking teh chlirdrens
those karens are dumb as toast and are not going to squeak very much about geeky kids who have figured out the bypass and because the cross jurisdictional shit... honestly, they can only swat the big guys.
that's the point of the commentary. you get big and popular on play store, you are in the crosshairs
if the dumb karens don't see it, it doesn't exist to the politician whose job is about appeasing these tabloid fodder.
what mleku said, and yes, there is a nip for terms but clients don't care. once they scrape that data themselves violating the terms, that's not a relay anymore, that's on the client that delivered the javascript CDN payload from their vercel accounts.
if you're so focused on what tekkadan is running his compiled notedeck, that's not the common path.
Can't say I disagree with any of this which is why I'm running a #Pubky homeserver.
IDK what else I could do to meet my own expectations without building another competing standard. I don't think there's zaps in PK yet but otherwise it seems all right.
nostr:nprofile1qqsyeqqz27jc32pgf8gynqtu90d2mxztykj94k0kmttxu37nk3lrktcpzamhxue69uhk6mr9dd6jumn0wd68yvfwvdhk6tcpzemhxue69uhhyetpd3ujumtvv44h2tnyv4mz7qg4waehxw309a6x2um59ekkcettw5hxgetk9usqc9v8 if anyone has a massive rebuttal for me on this side of the fence it's probably you. Everyone else just wants to bitch about the people who operate it but I see no reason to avoid DHT-backed infrastructure.
Especially with the medium timeframe transition considered, nostr and Pubky have similar goals. One could implement nostr zaps into Pubky and you would have a very incentive-aligned network of possibilities.
Is there some benefit to networks of relays, or, is there otherwise some reason to avoid DHT-driven architecture?
the whole point of what is so great about nostr is it's transport-agnostic
it doesn't wed your system to a consensus or a particular type of network
integrating DHT with a mesh network or LoRa low bandwidth connection isn't going to be as easy because DHTs are heavy on chatter, and kinda unnecessary for that context.
why i don't like bluesky is because you get stuck with a federated fan-in fan-out protocol
why i don't like fartcaster is because it weds your message protocol to a proof of stake blockchain, and IPFS, both of which have serious problems for actual censorship resistance (because it's not operating in the dark)
the problem with wedding the protocol to a DHT network is that you are also not allowing for the actual use of rendezvous properly, something that is uniquely valuable and used in the NWC protocol
there's nothing wrong with USING a DHT P2P protocol as a network transport, but you lose flexibility when you couple the messaging protocol to it because you can use it other ways as well, but anyway, as i see it, people who don't get what's so great about nostr is the decoupling, are gonna put their opinion on things by forcing the protocol to bind to whatever they think is cool and the things you can't do with that, will be lost.
