For those saying that the receiver can always screenshot and share in #2, sure. But apps can lead the receiver in the mindset of the sender.

If you receive a simple link, without explanations, you will think it's ok to reshare. The link is public after all.

But if you receive the same link, with a little confidential note attached to it by the UI, you will try to follow your friend's wishes.

Remember, most DMs are between people that know each other and want to sustain a good relationship.

It's not about making it mathematically impossible to reshare.

nostr:nevent1qqsdwz0a6xm0vek0rzwdk09q6whzm3yulu2wwgeat5ms6sxp87as9tcpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wchsygzxpsj7dqha57pjk5k37gkn6g4nzakewtmqmnwryyhd3jfwlpgxtspsgqqqrvusfjq94p

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Exactly bang on. Technology can't fix people being untrustworthy. As you said just make sure the UX is clear about this (it only protects you if you trust who you're talking to) and it's Gucci.

I think user must have the 2 options to select, sometime we need a "secure channel" and sometimes we just need a simple chat ... something nice will be create DM with: "private" and "public" modes

Screenshot's validity cannot be verified. While an encrypted signed note is 100% proof that one did in fact send this message.

UNencrypted, of course

Exactly. If the resharing makes a copy of the original image but with, let's say, few pixel changes or small encoding changes and no original metadata, then it's OK to me

Yes, but he and apparently many others seem to think you can trust people not to do that, and that you will only be DMing people who know you and will forever want to sustain a good relationship with you.

Why even install the gate, if people you're trusting to not walk around it can simply change their minds and do it anyway?

nostr:nevent1qqsvfjd6n0unctcqxqqw7833v0q0lhr7vr7h3393vjyk86sxet0a9wqpzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxgq3qgcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqxpqqqqqqzh8d4nc