Better explanation here: nostr:nevent1qqsz7r6acy9e9gzlf7kcf29hyyw3nrd5uyx4uk8sx0cna2vs3sfjzgspr3mhxue69uh5ummnw3ezucmvda6kgtnkd9hxuete9eu8j7szyqh04fc4hw6xm4d7dd7634msqfndz9n5hyfms9u2mk6u9e3anpenzqcyqqqqqqgjkh8fp
Do what you want wrt filtering, blocking, discomfort, etc. But do it very obviously and with user consent if you want to avoid stumbling blindfolded back into dystopia.
A good explanation, although the accusation that I was suggesting dystopian solution is false. I outlined why people want blocking. I didn't suggest we implement it, in fact that's so hard to do on Nostr it will probably never happen.
Sure, I understand why people want blocking. At the moment.
Once webs of trust, sovereign, self-served clients, and personal relays reach their full potential, they won't "want blocking" anymore or even think about it.
Even if blocking was somehow not difficult on Nostr-as-a-protocol (impossible, as already discussed), I would still rail against it as a norm and would encourage forking-away from anything that implemented it. It makes me uncomfortable that it's even perceived as being glanced at, side-eye. The fact that I can voice my opinion in a way that nobody except the listener can stifle is the reason we're here.
Mute is post-facto. Some people get so many replies that they don't want that mute isn't enough for them. They don't want to see them in the first place.
For this we can/should have community mute lists (which some people are calling 'block') that takes input from labelling/reporting (NIP-32, NIP-56) and has community moderators, which are subscribed to by like-minded people. Those community mutes won't affect you and me because we won't subscribe to them, but for people who trust their in-group, they can have such group mute lists. Most people in those groups won't see most offending posts, so it serves their purpose.
I just made a post going over many of the options:
