Your comment made me think of the labeling system I devised this weekend (which will get put up as a PR later this week).

An unstructured, 3rd party label of another person's profile is basically a review / recommendation of the other Nostr user. It's broader than just recommendations for relays, but every relay lists the npub of the Nostr account that's responsible for it. The relay reviews could be put there. (Though they'd be mixed in with other reviews for that person/organization).

https://github.com/s3x-jay/nostr-nips/blob/master/68.md

Exactly!!

Thank you for saying that! nostr:note19xce89gqkkzhxv2pp4vyz46jag9llewxe4s75rp74y6wkca83dss2nksum

To me, Nostr is a signed messaging system, not an event logging system. The relays are just databases (quite literally). Just as with other databases, sometimes you log stuff other times you overwrite things. Depends on the situation. That’s been Nostr’s approach since the beginning. Kind 0 & 3 are replaceable. Kind 1 isn’t.

In many ways it sounds like what I’ve been talking about with you only it sounds like they reserve the first pass of moderation and users only get to moderate more, not less.

> “…**we will be taking advantage of this to apply a first pass** to remove illegal content and label objectionable material. Then we will apply server-level filters as admins of bsky.social, with a default setting and custom controls to let you hide, warn, or show content. On top of that, we will let users subscribe to **additional sets of moderation** labels that can filter out more content or accounts.”

I can’t see that flying on Nostr. No one here gets a “first pass” other than relay owners who are trying to keep themselves out of court. Or are the people writing the doc the equivalent of Nostr relay owners? If so, then Nostr wins because there isn’t just one relay owner.

So you’re using a `t` tag. That works, it just can’t be corrected after the fact if they don’t get the tagging right (which admittedly isn’t the end of the world or anything).

Are you doing this with hashtags or something else? If more than hashtag, please take a look at something I came up with this weekend for labeling posts…

https://github.com/s3x-jay/nostr-nips/blob/master/68.md

Once I get nostr:npub1wmr34t36fy03m8hvgl96zl3znndyzyaqhwmwdtshwmtkg03fetaqhjg240's feedback, we'll put it up as a PR. But the "unstructured labeling" section would handle the use case you're talking about. Would even let people label things after the fact if they forgot to label it when they posted it.

Onboarding issues are huge. It's FAR too complicated for average folks to get up and running. Nostr makes them feel stupid. Ideally we'd make them feel powerful.

The other issue is critical mass - or the appearance of critical mass. It needs to be FAR easier to find people who are interested in similar things.

IMHO, the relays listed in NIP-05 should be taken more seriously. Also https://nak.nostr.com/ that Fiatjaf pointed out the other day solves a lot of the relay issues, but not all of them.

NIP-05 is verification in some cases.

- People who work for a company

- People who are members of a site

- _@domain.com means it's the official account for that domain

I look at it like an email address. Joe@BigCompany.com means something. But Joe@GMail.com means nothing.

Yes, it "offers an alternative to", but by 69 saying it deprecates 36 & 56 - what that means is that the approval of 69 will result in the deprecation of 36 & 56. I don't see why anyone would want multiple competing solutions for this.

All deprecate means is that 36/56 are losing "favor". There's nothing about them that indicates that they were particularly well thought out. They checked a box that was needed by the App Store. It was "good enough" for the moment, but we've moved beyond that now.

Deprecate = "to withdraw official support for or discourage the use of (something, such as a software product) in favor of a newer or better alternative"

Everything that can be done with NIP-36 & NIP-56 can be done with NIP-68/69. It makes no sense to have competing methods of doing something as basic as reporting illegal content.

They won’t be the first NIPs they have been deprecated. NIP-08 is deprecated already - and that was also a really basic function where it was counterproductive to have multiple ways of doing it (mentions).

Only NIP-01 is mandatory. No one is forcing any relay to implement NIP-69.

How do you login to nostr:npub12vkcxr0luzwp8e673v29eqjhrr7p9vqq8asav85swaepclllj09sylpugg? I seem to be logged into some read-only version with no way to logout. #help!

Censorship is an act of exerting power over someone else. Everything that’s being proposed is voluntary. Ergo, it’s not censorship.

Show me where someone is being forced to do something.

Is this better?

> "For a relay to say it supports this NIP it MUST support the ability for unpaid relay users to submit kind 32123 events that have `vocab` values of "MOD" or "X-MOD", and are related to content on the relay (`e` tag equal to an eventID in the relay database). That ability SHOULD be on by default, but MAY be turned off by the relay webmaster."

Support for NIPs is optional - so not it will only affect relays that want to say they support the NIP…

I'm very interested in this topic and look forward to hearing her comments…

Where I'm going with this is the idea of "trust" - where a user can say they trust certain people and only the moderation actions of those people (and the actions of the relays they pull from) can filter something out of their feed.

I explained it in a lot more detail here: https://s3x.social/nostr-content-moderation (though that hasn't been updated with what I did this weekend). And it's in line with a research paper that was pointed out to be by nostr:npub16zsllwrkrwt5emz2805vhjewj6nsjrw0ge0latyrn2jv5gxf5k0q5l92l7 which calls it "TrustNet".

To be more clear… It only replaces the labeling of the person doing the labeling. It does not override the labeling put on it by other users or the original author.

Do you feel parameterized replaceable events are inappropriate in the context of labeling?

I spent the weekend rethinking "NIP-69" that nostr:npub1wmr34t36fy03m8hvgl96zl3znndyzyaqhwmwdtshwmtkg03fetaqhjg240 and I had proposed. Based on some of the comments we had gottten I started with the idea of "labeling" and made the data needed for #ContentModeration just another type of labeling data.

That required coming up with a NIP for doing labeling. I made it so you can use _any_ coding system / defined vocabulary. Do you want to tag your posts (or someone else's) with some ISO code, or a GeoNames place ID, or some code from a structured vocabulary like MeSH? Or maybe you have your own defined vocabulary (like I do)… You can do that with what I'm calling "NIP-68". You can see it here…

https://github.com/s3x-jay/nostr-nips/blob/master/68.md

I'm hoping that NIP makes Nostr interesting to the scientific community. (It would be very funny if "the gay porn guy" kicked off the process of getting scientists onto Nostr.)

Then… I reworked our NIP-69 proposal so it's just a defined vocabulary for NIP-68 labeling. Actually it's two defined vocabularies. One is somewhat rigid, the other is more organic - anyone can just create a new moderation-related code and start using it. You can see my new NIP-69 here…

https://github.com/s3x-jay/nostr-nips/blob/master/69.md

It does have an impact on how things are done now. It deprecates both NIP-36 and NIP-56 and requires paid relays to accept moderation reports from unpaid users if the content being reported is on the relay. (Without that change relay owners may never know they have illegal content on their relay).

Client apps can keep their current "report post" UI (or enhance it with new features), but they will need to change the event that's sent from type 1984 to type 32123. The few apps that are using the reports to filter/block what their users see (like nostr:npub1gcxzte5zlkncx26j68ez60fzkvtkm9e0vrwdcvsjakxf9mu9qewqlfnj5z's Amethyst) may need to make more more substantial changes (but they may want to wait, since this isn't the end of the suggestions regarding content moderation).

I'm still discussing with Rabble the best way to present 68 & the new 69 as Nostr PRs, but that will probably get done in the next day or two.