Replying to Avatar PABLOF7z

no, that's part of the opinion

Amethyst did exactly the same with the opinion that (iirc) 5 reports of a user = shadowbanning.

It's an opinion, it's just in this case it wasn't automated (afaict) (yet?)

What constitutes spam or misbehavior is extremely subjective, just look at how spamassassin works 😅
72
nobody 2y ago

I love you Pablo, but I disagree with your take on this.

The opinion is filtering.

Whether it is done transparently and openly is not an opinion, it is a violation of a sovereign users trust.

The community made itself heard very clearly during the Amethyst incident that we don’t tolerate being manipulated by an algorithm we didn’t consent to.

I have absolutely zero beef with Primal or any other client implementing any algorithm they want to. I encourage it actually. We have a growing segment of users who desire it. My beef is that I used *both* clients for months without being informed it was happening.

Access to the source code is not adequate. We want mainstream usage, then we have to make informed consent in a way people without coding skills can understand a societal norm on Nostr.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
PABLOF7z 2y ago

And I’m sure that’s coming. Well, I’m not sure, I’m just guessing, but creating this tooling is non-trivial and if you’re reacting to the spamming of the feed you first implement the filtering and then, once your product stops being broken you go back and make the tooling to help people tweak the filtering.

These things just take time 😅