I certainly don't want to tell people who they are allowed to mute.

But if the entire purpose of the protocol is to resist censorship, and muting (a method of censorship) is opaque, then it's impossible to even know if abuse is occurring.

If mutes are public (as they should be), then at least if batch muting gets weaponized it can be exposed.

Without transparency, you get a shadowban, of an unknown extent. The exact same thing the protocol was created to deter.

Could a user not take a public "bad actor" list, and mute it privately?

Leaving no way for outsiders to audit the extent that batch muting is occurring, on a protocol-wide basis?

Are you serious? You don't see the problem with hiding mute lists on an "open" and "censor-resistant" protocol?

Hiding mutes is literally opening the door to shadow-banning. At a user level OR a client level.

A bad actor list forms, everyone adds it to their private mutes, weaponizing the function and shadowbanning a swath of users.

Encrypting mutes is terrible function, bordering catastrophic to the purpose of the entire protocol.

I would much rather see an aggregation service that publicly shows how many people have muted each user. To verify batch muting isn't occurring. This is really bad stuff.

What is an encrypted mute list and what is its use case?

But the architecture is still filtering notifications App-Side, no?

If so, that's the wrong architecture.

Filter them relay-side so no app-side discarding/suppressing needs to occur.

nostr:npub1fjqqy4a93z5zsjwsfxqhc2764kvykfdyttvldkkkdera8dr78vhsmmleku Where are these clients typically filtering feeds?

Relay-side? Do they run a caching intermediary? Or fully app-side like nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl is alluding to?

Interesting. An app-side filter. That kinda makes sense architecturally actually. Skips requiring a server. What client?

Hmmm, not happening to me on Primal or Amethyst. Takes a minute to propagate a mute. But no problems here on that front.

The latter. Questionable.

Elaborate?

In your feed, they're still showing you people you've muted.

Or, by you or I muting someone, clients are suppressing that person in everyone else's feed?

Is NostrBand fudging stats?

Screenshot 2 weeks ago shows declining trend, in the range of 10-12k DAU's.

Now, the exact same dates show 12-14k DAU, showing an uptrend.

Note Apr 8 specifically. The same date magically changed from 10k to 13k+. Are rewriting history here to #grownostr? Something is fishy.

Yup. There's a lot of bullishness out there right now saying we're out of the woods. I've been arguing we aren't.

Friendly reminder: The Yield Curve is STILL inverted, 2yrs later.

That's deeper and longer than any inversion in the last 40yrs.

Recessions come after yield curve inversions. And we still haven't had ours yet.

No chance. Too many CRM's as it is. Nostr has no value add. This is buzzword chasing and reinventing the wheel.

🤣 🤣

Entitlement seems only be for critical notifications (emergency alerts, alarms, overriding ringer silencers, etc).

Are you triggering the notify service directly from Damus Relay? If so I would work on "filtering" the notifies Relay-side.

In the same way that you would filter Relay-side that Bob only gets notifies on events for Bob's posts (and not Sally's).... A similar Relay-side filter should be able to filter out events from muted parties too.

Then use Apple Notify service under "Active" level, without need for entitlement.

Sound like Apple. What are they preventing?

Censorship surging on Tittler.

Everyone talks about censorship. But no one talks about what DRIVES censorship. To me, it's driven by 3 main behaviors:

-HYPERSENSITIVITY: This offends me.

-GROUPTHINK: I can see how this is offensive to you, therefore it offends me too.

-COERCION: Since this offends us, we should "protect" others from the same discomfort we feel, by censoring offensive stuff.

We can build all the censor-resistant mechanisms in the world. But so long as sensitivity and groupthink pervade, weak people will strive to coerce strong ones.

We need to normalize:

-Feeling uncomfortable

-Thinking outside the Overton Window

-Challenging beliefs

-Being different (truly different)

Until we do, the urge to censor will seep out no matter what medium or tangible tools we build to prevent it.

Yup nostr:npub1a2uzwplzy8uw79rrna6lr0mgxdmx3nfl0xrhcy7se7m24awk5ujqw032qc is right.

Demand for BTC comes from 2 things: 1) Inflation resistance 2) Censorship resistance.

Stop inflating via currency debasement and you remove 1 demand prong for BTC. Of course that's not just 1 country, that's all countries. Will never happen with idiot lying politicians in charge.

And if/once BTC reaches critical mass, something we're approaching, it becomes much harder to put the rabbit back in the hat.