Nostr Web Client

Respect my freedom to use Nostr however I like. If I want to like something, I will. If I want to zap something, I will. The two serve different functions to me and many others.

You also missed my point where I directly answered your question. Even if other clients support it in the exact same way yours does, if I choose to use a client that doesn't, I don't know who is using it.

Many people also use multiple clients, and may have different devices set up in different ways, hence may see (for example) a like on their desktop even if they don't see it on their iPhone.

jb55 2y ago

This is a flawed analogy. I can setup my lightning node to block zaps from your pubkey. Is it really “your right” to send something to someone that they don’t want? For what reason?

Is it “your right” to send to a thread when it has been marked “xanny can’t reply to this”. Sure, go do that in another client then. Clients that respect users individual preferences don’t need to show it.

Its not black and white though. damus still allows you to reply to people who have muted you, which I think is fine, a blocking feature could prevent you altogether, but like you said it would be pointless because other clients who don’t implement this could still show it.

I don’t feel like I’m not taking away anything that actually matters. We’re talking about likes that they don’t want and will never see, and it’s opt in. Is this really a hill to die on?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

symbsrcool 2y ago

Isn’t setting up the lightning node to block zaps the same thing as you saying you don’t want to “see” them? Someone still can try to send out the zap. Maybe it won’t go through but you can’t prevent someone from trying.

I love the idea of you choosing what you see in your UI, but once you put a note out there, it’s not yours anymore. You prove it came from you, but someone else can put in on a website and other people can interact with it in all the wierd ways they want to.

I think as soon as you’re trying to control what other people do, you’re trying to censor - if you don’t want to see something, just hide it, like with muting, etc.

This feels like the same argument as trying to tell someone they can’t say something because it might offend you. You’re only responsible for listening by and reacting, but you can’t control what someone else says.

If you still disagree, what do you think I’m missing here?

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

Thank you.

This gets to the crux of why it's a strange implementation to me.

Instead of changing the user's UX, it forces a change on everyone else's.

To me that's backwards.

jimbocoin 🃏 2y ago

Exactly. The author of a post has a preference (say, not to see nor receive likes). That preference can be expressed to the reader, but (IMO) should not curtail the reader’s options.

jb55 2y ago

> Maybe it won’t go through but you can’t prevent someone from trying.

If my lightning address endpoint has “blocked pubkeys” in the data, why would I show a button that would be guaranteed to fail ?

> you’re trying to control what people do

No I’m giving individuals the power to control the types of interactions they have on the network. I am not forcing this on anyone. I actually have no problem enabling the like button for people who dont have OnlyZaps on for OnlyZaps profiles, I am just really trying to understand why people care about sending zaps to people who will never get it and why they feel this strongly about it. For me I just see it as a ux flaw.

symbsrcool 2y ago

I thought this was more of a protocol discussion than a just a damus UX discussion… 😅

I personally wouldn’t want other peoples profiles to show a zap button if they wouldn’t/couldn’t receive it…

Liking seems maybe a little different because even if the person posting doesn’t want to see the likes, I can see how other may still want to like a post and posts that gets lots of likes is a way for people to find good content. So while the person posting would never see it, it could still be really useful for others.

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

First of all you're being way more defensive than you need to be. I'm giving feedback on a beta feature in your client. That's literally what beta testing is for. If you think I'm fuming with anger because of this, you're mistaken.

I simply feel your implementation makes too many assumptions and creates a worse UX for the broader Nostr ecosystem. I have explained my reasoning very clearly.

Not everyone uses Damus.

Not every client will implement your idea.

Not everyone uses Nostr the same way.

Most people who don't opt in won't even know if someone else has unless they exclusively access Nostr through your app.

Many people opt to use multiple Nostr clients and will see likes on others even if they don't on yours.

Removing the option to like only creates more noise in the feed as people reply/quote instead of just hitting a like button.

oldkeyprince 2y ago

Wills way nicer than me. I’d just tell you to shut the fuck up or fork

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

What's the point of open beta testing if your reaction to polite user feedback is "shut the fuck up"?

Boatface 2y ago

I rarely find “rights” discussions helpful/useful. If I don’t want likes, or even zaps, that’s my preference. More options are more better.