So it's like a community note on Twitter that you can incorporate into the original post only if you so choose, and there’s no way to substitute the suggested version for the original unless the poster himself green-lights it?
Or followers can see the busy-bodied version if they select that view, but that version will have the profile-pictures of the busybodies attached to the note, so it would be impossible to mistake it as authored by the OP?
A client can't show an edit not signed by OP as coming from OP.
I suppose people can build whatever they want and choose to view whatever they want, but then I think you’d have a demand for clients that allow for blocking other clients that allow the unsigned sanitized version of posts to be used in a feed. (If I’m understanding this correctly.)
If edits that aren't signed by OP show up in a feed, they are clearly not the OP's. Just like a quote boost is not. There is no ambiguity.
Yeah, but the quote boost has the original unedited post. This would not. So people would have no way of knowing at a glance the difference between an edited post solely with typos removed and one with the intent changed. They would know it was edited (and not signed off on), but not why or how in the sanitized version.
You kind of see this is corporate media now, omitting context and delivering the sanitized feed to its terrified viewers.
Yes there are people who will not believe their own eyes, until it has been repackaged and sold to them on MSNBC. But whereas the news will pawn off their narratives as truth, an unendorsed edit can never make such a claim.
We’ll see — I see the corporate media as basically making unendorsed edits and credulous partisans thinking it’s 100 percent true.
Good for nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z to consider something new that hasn’t really been done on legacy platforms, but I’m still a hard pass on this one.
Correct.
