#OnlyZaps is an effort to censor reactions on an uncensorable network.
Discussion
😂🤙
Is it though? The choice is in the hands of the user. Someone with #onlyzaps enabled is simply ignoring a reaction. User preference.
Notable users like #[3] are asking about ways to prevent readers from having the option to like or see an aggregated count of likes.
In fact, recent Test Flight versions of Damus are implementing this policy. If you’re on latest Test Flight Damus, looking at a post from a person who has enabled #OnlyZaps, the like button will not appear.
Oh, I didn’t ask for it, it just happened and I am all for giving it a try! 🐶🐾🫡
Right here. It seemed to me that you were asking how to impose your preference to hide likes onto readers of your posts. Did I misinterpret? nostr:note1qspztvae5m9r9j92zjk2f9qavyen50gpgwfyd52z3kgxw2y029kse94xlv
Reactions users should still be able to see a like count if you click on a post… if not that’s a bug
Is the like button still available for readers of OnlyZaps authors’ notes? I’m on stock iOS, not Test Flight so I have not been affected.
OnlyZaps mode is a user preference which states “I don’t want to use reactions on nostr and I don’t want to receive them”
To make this clear to users, the like button is disabled on users posts who have OnlyZaps enabled.
Right. This is the issue that I would like to see addressed. It’s cool if the author doesn’t want to see reactions. What I dislike is that their preference decides my functionality.
I would prefer to be able to opt-out of this client feature reduction. That is, let me continue to post reactions even when the author won’t see them. It is, of course, your privilege to choose.
What is the purpose of a reaction that the author of a post won’t see, and is that purpose fulfilled better with some other functionality? Not saying there isn’t a legitimate need for what you’re describing but is a reaction the best solution?
There are three audiences for a reaction:
- the author of the original note,
- the creator of the reaction,
- other readers observing both.
If you eliminate the author from seeing the reaction, there are still the other two. The creator may want to know later which posts they liked and when. The creator may want to search through their old liked content to find something they half remember.
The other readers may want to see aggregate counts of reactions of different types. Perhaps they want to search for the mutually-liked posts of the people they follow. That could be a strong signal.
Could these be handled in another way? Certainly. But what would be the benefit of inventing a different mechanism?
I think this is where the bookmarks feature comes in. Someone correct me, but I think you can have public and private bookmarks. So you’re able to search for things later. And if they were bookmarked publicly, it can be a signal for others to see.
Right. The nostr protocol is fairly liberal in what kinds of content one can post. One could use replaceable long-form notes to encode an encrypted list of bookmarked posts for example. There are probably dozens of ways to implement bookmarking and personal search for the specific only-you use case.
The nice thing about likes in particular is that it’s an established paradigm. Likes are low-hanging fruit, UI-implementation wise. Some clients won’t implement likes, but many do. So a user using likes for bookmarks/search can more easily try different clients compared to a user relying on a more exotic implementation.
I disagree that anyone other than the author of the note and the creator of the reaction have any significance when it comes to this. Anyone else is a bystander, a lookie-loo.
I don’t know what you mean they don’t matter. Whether someone’s like matters is subjective. Do you mean the bystanders don’t matter to you specifically?
A reaction is between two people. Third parties may be curious to see them but it’s not intended for them. Do you give likes to give feedback? Or is it to get attention from others? That is what it boils down to.
In that case, one could implement private likes. Basically a DM where the payload is “I liked this thing you posted”.
Personally, as a bystander, I like to see like counts on other peoples’ posts. This provides feedback about what types of content are connecting with readers. It’s a weak signal, but signal nonetheless.
Fair enough. It doesn’t matter to me to see them and I don’t feel obligated to receive them only so you can see them. Difference of preference. 🤷♂️
What I’m learning from this conversation is that there seem to be a surprisingly broad range of ways people think about likes and their relative value. I would not have expected this. The concept of a “like” seems straightforward at first blush, but what that like means (to the creator, the recipient, and the bystanders) is definitely not obvious. 😅
Agreed! 😅 Definitely a broad range of perspectives. If nothing else this feature has sparked some great discussion
Feedback! (For me)
I send zaps when I find some truly valuable. 🤙’s and 🖤’s are just a nice passive “hey I like this”
The basic idea of zaps is to reward good content and avoid bot spamming. I’m not decided on what is the best way at the moment, but I do see a possibility for people to give likes too much weight and enabling bot manipulation again. Likes are essentially Fiat money as they hold no weight and it isn’t verifiable whether the account leaving it is real.
💡
Funny memes aside, this isn't true. If you want to use likes and reactions, you move to a client that has those feature still. You can also fork or clone the code and fix it or run it yourself. Everything is open. This openness prevents censorship. This is the beauty of open source software and open protocols.
#[0]
You’re right that the censored parties can switch clients. I did not mean to imply that the censorship would be successful.
🫂
Exactly. Damus is a great client, but there is no “critical mass” that allows it to enforce its will onto the system. People can change clients and Damus can decide if it wants to change features.
Agreed. I do not think the censorship will be successful.
I think we are so used to not owning our own posts on social media that we feel entitled to like notes. But since you own your notes on nostr, you should be able to choose how people are able to react to it. Notes are your property. On twitter you can like posts because Twitter says you can. On nostr you can like notes only if the user says you can.
But we don’t own our notes? What does that even mean. We sign them, so they can’t be changed but then they get sent out for relays, other people, etc to do whatever they want with them. Once you put it out there, all people can do is verify you actually said it, but that’s it.
Isn’t your argument the same thing as asking someone not to say something to offend you? You’re trying to control other people here. In fact people aren’t “liking your note” instead a “like” event is broadcasted that says a person liked a particular note id, so their “like” is entirely separate from your “note”, it just refers to it
I’m not trying to control anyone. Part of the reason I’m not doing only zaps is that I don’t want to force people to pay me sats if all they want to do is acknowledge they agree with me or like my post. But that’s my belief, and I still think people should have control over how their own posts are interacted with.
If someone says something that offends me, I mute them, simple.
My understanding of ownership in this context is that you own all your data/events here, no one else owns it, that’s why you’re able to move from one client to another since all your data/events are just tied to your key pair. Since you own your data you should be able to say how others interact with it, which only zaps allows for.
I was with you until here “Since you own your data you should be able to say how others interact with it, which only zaps allows for. “
I disagree - you can control how you see their interactions with your notes, but you can’t control their interactions.
And it’s not really “owning” in the traditional sense. They have copies of it just like you do, it’s just proved that it came from you.
And if you don’t back up your posts, and relays don’t save them, you won’t take them anywhere because they don’t exist anymore.
Yeah, these are fair points. I suppose an argument can be made that if an interaction is an event, and, with my understanding of ownership, you own all your events, then not allowing likes is limiting someone’s ability to write an event. I guess if we don’t like it we can just go to a different client that doesn’t support onlyzaps.
All I know is that I’m keeping onlyzaps turned off on Damus.
Yeah I’m not sure what I’m going to do yet… at this point I’d like to support whatever helps Nostr grow the most
I do not see it thay way. The user is in control on in-bound reaction. It is anyway cool to experiment with new social media mechanisms.
