You can use nostr:npub1t0nyg64g5vwprva52wlcmt7fkdr07v5dr7s35raq9g0xgc0k4xcsedjgqv version today. There is no need to wait.
Discussion
I will have to check it out. I like that you're working to combat spam, but the reason I'm on Nostr is because I want to have the choice, not have it decided for me.
friend just accept this, I consider this filter an error and does not work as it should, perhaps soon realize that it is not worth insisting on errors
will probably have to be fixed in the future
while this is not fixed, can we make bots banned? π
nostr:npub13wfgha67mdxall3gqp2hlln7tc4s03w4zqhe05v4t7fptpvnsgqs0z4fun repeat this post five time and get ban
Not sure exactly what you're saying, but...no
If I reply "Gm" to people 5 times in a row, am I going to get shadow banned for Amethyst users as well?
Also, not sure why Tony's version crashes when tagging, but worth investigating.
No, the spam filter only considers messages with over 50 chars to avoid those situations.
And if someone posts a boiler plate "Good morning post promoting their business or content daily, if they don't alter it enough do they end up auto blocked?
To be frank I don't want your or any app blocking people for me. I respect you and what you do and I understand why you are doing what you are. But it's not in the spirit of nostr to not provide a way for users to at least opt out of your filters if they can't have some form of granular control. Content creators and business people will post repetitive content and I want to see some of it. Context matters, and that's something filters can't judge.
Sure. And like I said many times already. I will take a look at PRs that can enable those situations as long as the experience is better. It's just not what I am focused on at the moment.
I get it, thanks for all the work you do. I think for many of us here, not having people be censored for us is a very big issue.
Frankly, the word "censorship" makes me less willing to engage in a conversation about this feature. This is not censorship.
If you enable your family and friends with Nostr accounts, wouldn't you want to protect them from the bad actors out there in such a way that they don't fall for scams or see dick pics everywhere?
For me, that's not censorship. Group protection was why this feature was first established. It's a decentralized way to create trust groups and help people protect each other against outsiders.
Can the feature be better? Definitely. Should it use something else than the generally follow list to declare trust? Probably. But that was all we had until a few weeks ago when we implemented Lists into Amethyst. As we move forward, we will have more opportunities to develop a hierarchical web of trust where people can more accurately point to the folks they trust to help them navigate each part of the ecosystem.
I get what you mean, but the issue here is that there are multiple people who I would not have blocked, did not block, and don't concent to blocking that were blocked for me because of your filters I was unaware that it even happened, and I never interacted with them. That is an issue, and from my perspective that is censorship whether or not that was your intention I don't disagree with any of the point you've raised, nor do I expect perfection or a system without flaws. It's a very complex topic, but the reality is that we are looking at a slippery slope similar to past social media experiences, and several people have already been slid down it.
So until we find a way to refine a web of trust/distrust, I want to opt-out of anyone adding someone to my unlock list. I'm a big boy, I can choose for myself.
not censorship, agreed. there are actually only two valid forms of censorship: self censorship and turning your back to something. I guess what youβre saying is the latter.