Nostr Devs are like:
Dev 1: Can I add this "lastword" tag to signal that I stopped following this thread?
Dev 2: Is it ethical, though?
Dev 3: Do you think humans can determine what's ethical?
...
10s of messages about the meaning of life and the foundations of consciousness.
...
Dev 1: Why is pi 3.14159265etc?
...
Dev 3: Isn't "lastword" just a mute?
...
Dev 1: solipsism doesn't seem statistically likely, for the same reasons superdeterminism doesn't seem likely.
...
How does see how signaling that one stopped following a thread has to do with ethics though.
Isn’t it considered polite to say bye when leaving a place. 🤣
Vitor didn't cover all the details.
My original idea (which I retract) was that if you mark a post with a 'lastword' tag you are not only signalling that you will not be monitoring replies, but also clients that support this wont allow people to reply to it. That last part I think was my "ethical" lapse. I thought it was enough that they could repost it with any commentary that they wanted, as well as reply to the parent comments and extend the thread that way. Apparently that was an ethical blunder on my part.
Ah I see thanks for the context.
Very risky thing to share hahaha I’m so inclined to share my opinion. lol
But I will try my best and not.
The nature of the communication can signal a face slammed with door methinks, passive aggressive. I don't want passive aggressive design in my apps. The FB thumb gives me that vibe too.
If you need to leave, you say it. Yes its harder, but you leave acknowledging the humanity of the individuals you engaged with instead of a sign saying I'm done and a "i'm-not-listening-lalala" silent vibe.
Things that don’t belong to our mind are uncertain... 😬
I approach nostr through a network science/Complexity perspective.
- Formal Cause: What is the form of the system? The network is the structure of the system
- Material Cause: What is the system constructed of? Individual engagement by humans is the process in which the network comes to be.
- Efficient cause: What is the process by which the system changes? The cybernetic mix of human engagement and algorithm-like process that bring notes to our feeds.
- Final cause: What is the purpose of the system? To be an effective protocol to facilitate censorship resistance.
After defining our system using the Four Causes, what effects do we want? What processes exist that are destructive to the system that we should work on?
First and formost I dont want toxicity nor spam, otherwise i see no point to the protocol.
Hence: WOT, fine grained filter controls, and segragated communities. Actual public squares can exist because smaller communties have a higher cohesion in values whereas the world is too fragmented to have a global free-for-all town square.
