this is exactly the same as "I don't want to see those posts on my feed and that's not censorship" defense. or "ordinals of Bitcoin"
we have a problem on the concept of censorship
Discussion
If it’s only about your own experience, then it’s all good. Your client can choose to ignore notes for any reason.
The problem is when your preferences as a publisher affect your readers scope of actions. For example, if you have OnlyZaps enabled, and the client then hides the like button for readers of your post.
Of course, readers can switch clients. The point of my meme is that imposing the author’s zap preference on readers is an attempt at censorship—censoring readers’ reactions.
Nostr Improvement Possibilities are not required, they're just possible. Meaning a client can implement that feature if they want to do that.
I want Lists dammit! But because Amethyst and Snort doesn't have them doesn't mean that they're censoring me from grouping people together. I can just use Coracle or NostrGram if I really want that feature.
Does that analogy help?
We do have a problem with understanding censorship or muting. People don't seem to understand that me muting someone doesn't censor them at all. We're both free to continue on as we please. I'm free from their content that I don't want to see and they're free to continue to post said content. It's glorious. We both win! 🫂💜
Agreed that muting is not censorship. Muting is about what you see. Censorship is about what others see.
Some clients (Damus) are starting to honor authors’ OnlyZaps preference by hiding the like button from readers—preventing the reader from posting likes or seeing like counts.
The user can switch clients, of course. But what Damus is doing, via OnlyZaps is censorship because it hides information from readers arbitrarily based on the author’s preference (not the reader’s preference).
Astral.ninja NEVER implemented likes. That's not censorship. The developer just doesn't like likes. It's not a requirement. Reactions are just a possibility.
To be super clear:
- A client not implementing a feature at all is NOT censorship.
- A client implementing a feature that gives a user the ability to filter their own experience (mute) is NOT censorship.
IMO:
- A client filtering content for one or more users based on the arbitrary preferences of another party IS censorship.
This is what Damus is doing. If the author has enabled OnlyZaps, readers are unable to post or see reactions on that author’s posts. This is censoring content from the reader at the discretion of the author.
Thank you for clarifying. 🤝
If the reader wants to provide the author with a reaction and the reader has them turned off, then the reader will need to go to use a client that supports the feature that they want.
Client devs will have to consider these situations, that making certain changes may make some users unhappy and those users will seek out other clients that meet their needs. This is the free market at work though, right?
Related, I am thinking about using Coracle full time on the web over Snort just because I want Lists and Coracle has that feature.
Imagine fighting for something as meaningless as a like that provides zero signal
My reactions provide signal to me. My later self, to be specific. Have I seen this before? Did I like it then? These are questions answered by reactions (likes), even if no one but me ever sees them.
🙃
In this case then I'd recommend doing 1 sat Zaps or using a client that implements features that you want. We have a lot of choices 🤙🏻
Sure thing. I agree that client choice exists and that it’s a compelling feature of the nostr protocol and network. Competition among clients and relays is why nostr will win where other Twitter competitors have failed. 🤝
My objective with my meme was to raise awareness of the issue. My hope is that Damus will offer me an option to ignore the author’s preferences with respect to my ability to post kind=7 notes. If not, I’ll find another client (or make one).
Currently, to my knowledge, Damus is the only iOS client not relegated to Test Flight. Hopefully that’ll change soon.
no. such approach derail the issue. you do have a censorship approval mentality if you re into censoring "yourself" from others. (we all know you re censoring others) in that REGARD you can't be trusted when it comes to defending censorship resistant anything because no one can tell your approval will expand or not in the future. (by you I mean anyone)
"ordinals of Bitcoin"... we are all for freedom, no masters, self sovereignty yada yada but still keep the artifacts of fiat world with us. "you can't keep your jpegs on my node"
we don't have a problem on censorship mentality, we have a problem on freedom mentality. like it's engraved on the bones
so you're saying that people have the right to say whatever they want, but they don't have the right to see whatever they want? so in a 2 party situation, only one person is allowed to have freedom? that doesn't seem right to me.
I just closed a tab in my web browser, essentially censoring that web page from providing content to me. 💪
yeah.. who cares what you individually do? make filters on relays and start mass muting. where will that lead you? in the end, with this mentality, censorship, freedom all become a bunch of words to sell new age wokeness. nothing more