It’s a problem that will kinda solve itself over time.
When users understand that Relay X refused to delete their content but Relays Y & Z did the delete, they’ll stop using Relay X and get their friends to do the same. They’ll also think twice before using a blaster relays for anything but deletes.
wouldn’t relays or other caching services be able to read/host content even if the original writer didn’t intend. so it isn’t always the user’s choice once the signed message is out there?
if deletion isn’t actually deletion people will just prefer edits “there’s an edited version of this post that provides clarity”
yeah, that seems very likely/reasonable to me
I don’t see the point between a request for a relay to edit something and a request for a relay to delete something. There are no guarantees in either case. Relays will get reputations. And the winners will be those that do what the user requests.
editing can be entirely client side (“lyle submitted an update to this post”). so can deleting, but my point is deleting is pointless if you can’t actually delete. client side edits are actually useful and also helpful in many situations instead of deleting.
I think a lot depends on the messaging that clients provide to users around these actions. Ideally it can be kept as simple as possible without committing to something that a client can’t commit to.
A client can commit to a feature called “edit” without committing that old versions were guaranteed to be removed/buried by all relays.
The internet archive, library of congress, poltiwoops, and others all archived tweets and refused to delete them. I’m sure twitter doesn’t actually delete a tweet from all of their databases and logs either. But you could still delete them from your timeline and that’s a valuable and important feature. Being able to signal that you want this event removed and that most people will honor it is what’s needed.
We might even put a warning up when users in nos start using a relay that doesn’t support delete, so users are aware. Yes the can lie. But we can do some checks. Look at relays, attempt to request events that your peers deleted or set expiration timestamps on, and then rate them as untrustworthy if they continue to serve those events.
For me one of the big advantages of nostr over scuttlebutt is the ability to request deletion.
enjoyed all of these perspectives. thanks gents 🍻
User can post a correction note subsequently.
There is no delete or edit. There are only such requests.
I’ve been thinking of how we can move away from transposing 1:1 everything from twtr. It’s harder than I would have thought.
I think the way is to embrace the unique design envelope of nostr, and focus on building the things that can only be built on nostr.
yeah, it’s diff from twitter and will diverge more over time. let’s just embrace what it is!
And archive.org has all of our web bloopers too. In time “good” clients will refuse to load data from known shady relays.
Bottom line even now nothing you post on the internet can be fully deleted since someone could take a screen capture of it. Shady relays are just the Nostr equivalent of that.
There will be the good side of Nostr and “Dark Nostr”. The folks on Nostr will need to pick a team and defend the team.
