Thought: people pushing deletion on nostr: this enables litigators to force individuals to delete their posts or face legal consequences. Wallet scrutiny wouldn’t be able to use longform posts to get around takedown requests because of that. You actually *need* relays that ignore deletion or you don’t have censorship resistance 
Discussion
Good point!
Interesting perspective. 🤔 I think you are right.
Yes I agree, you're right 👍
Correct and well said
Yeah, typos annoy us, we may regret some notes and want to take them back, we make mistakes and let out info that shouldn't be out there, we even may post NSFW, we do stupid shit,
But freedom is more important than all of us.
We need to protect freedom of keyboard here, at any cost.
It might will be the only silver lining in the dark ages to come.
What about enabling a message pointing to it's correction, which could be read automatically or manually by the reader?
Those are replaceable events. There is already a nip for those but they’re more general use rather than for notes.
Thank you for explaining. I had not thought of this. I was a massive advocate for deletion, now I agree it shouldn’t be implemented.
#[2]
Permanence is one of my favorite features of notes. It encourages me to put thought into what I post and whom I'm engaging with
I think many of these people are bad actors trying to limit censorship resistance. They’ll tell you we *need* stuff like moderation or deletion for mass adoption.
“What if someone posts illegal notes 😨”
But they fail to tell you that with laws like the dmca, anything can be ”illegal” so long as a powerful person wants it.
So what if someone does post illegal content? Relay jannies are going to want the ability to delete illegal content so they don’t end up in prison, so then do only jannies get to decide what gets deleted? It literally makes zero sense to not allow ppl to delete their own posts.
This is a bad opinion for at least three reasons (probably more):
The state can and will make anything that threatens them illegal. Encryption was illegal for years.
Relay operators can always delete anything they want.
“not allow people to delete” is usually just a sneaky way of saying “force relay operators to delete”. you should look into the history of a tool called tls notary (or maybe ssl notary?) if you want an example of why I am skeptical of this kind of argument
What you’re saying makes zero sense. So in this fantasy scenario, you’re imaging a government threatening someone to delete illegal content, and if they can’t, they’re just going to drop the issue altogether? That’s not how the real world works.
Not at all. I think it’s good that relay operators can delete anything they want. After all, it’s their computer.
I’m just saying that we should see these campaigns to implement “moderation” and “deletion requests” and the like for what they are: engineering to benefit the state. I wont be working on that stuff unless I’m forced to by threats of state violence.
You should be suspicious of anyone that is.
So you think it’s good an.. authority (relay jannies) can delete posts, but the authors of said posts shouldn’t have the freedom to delete their own work? Someone wishing to delete their own posts isn’t “moderation”.
Being the author of something does not give you the right to tell other people what to do with their computers.
Straw man argument, and also legally false. A deletion request can’t necessarily force someone to delete the post, but it should still be possible to request.
Legally false? ok mr. bot esquire.
I’m sure the state wants the documents posted on wikileaks deleted.
If you want someone else to do something for you, it’s better to ask nicely, or pay them. But you have to be willing to live with the fact that sometimes the answer will be no.
So then you agree that deletes should be a feature.
Btw relay jannies have zero legal standing as to the copyright of the things you publish. Imagine if an authority could just take your work and do with it what they please.
Literally what wikileaks does
They typically publish government works, which are not protected by copyright. But yeah, look where that guy is, that’s how the real world works, you’re just in denial.
“look where that guy is”
Very telling reply from #[3]
Recorded this from my phone through Nostrgram, if I do this again it will be done through my desktop.
I technically disagree with the premise. Relay operators *are* hosting the notes, but they're hosts in the same way that twitter is a host, not responsible for what end users actually post. The idea (as I saw it) was that relay operators in different jurisdictions would be subject to different laws. So lets say hypothetically that Germany wanted to take one of bot's notes down they could force German relay operators to remove the notes, but not say a relay in the Canary Islands so that would provide some resiliency for the end user in the case of censorship.
However for an end user, if bot is hypothetically in the US and a US court directs them to remove a post they would generally expect to have that functionality. It's understood that this may not scrub the post from existence due to on or offline archiving of said post, but it would at least be removed from the primary source where possible.
Now if we look at deletes on nostr. I tested from other apps today creating a note on iris.to and then deleting it on snort.social. All of the relays listed on NADAR accepted that delete including damus.io. Unless damus is specifically flagging notes sent from the app differently it should be possible to delete those notes from other apps. As such you aren't making nostr delete proof, you're merely inconveniencing your users, forcing them to either migrate to another option or switch between damus and another tool if they wish to or are compelled to delete note(s).
Yes, and that censorship protection already exists since relays can be in different jurisdictions. The issue of allowing ppl to delete their own posts is a completely separate topic. Btw section 230 doesn’t give relay jannies blanket immunity.
I think a good middle ground would be having relays that explicitly refuse to delete posts that ppl can voluntarily use.
But if government agents are coming to your house to make you delete social media posts, the problem isn’t just going to go away because you “can’t” on Damus.
Would be nice but unfortunately:
note1vlqpuyp8drja3wxr887smkdj7uurs6tl7gheanmpfsvr80c99z3q40qdxz
no
So you think the legal consequences are just going to go away if someone can’t delete their posts? Things may actually turn out worse for them if they can’t.