My hack doesn't work at all. Just ignore the second paragraph.

Yes, and that censorship protection already exists since relays can be in different jurisdictions. The issue of allowing ppl to delete their own posts is a completely separate topic. Btw section 230 doesn’t give relay jannies blanket immunity.

I technically disagree with the premise. Relay operators *are* hosting the notes, but they're hosts in the same way that twitter is a host, not responsible for what end users actually post. The idea (as I saw it) was that relay operators in different jurisdictions would be subject to different laws. So lets say hypothetically that Germany wanted to take one of bot's notes down they could force German relay operators to remove the notes, but not say a relay in the Canary Islands so that would provide some resiliency for the end user in the case of censorship.

However for an end user, if bot is hypothetically in the US and a US court directs them to remove a post they would generally expect to have that functionality. It's understood that this may not scrub the post from existence due to on or offline archiving of said post, but it would at least be removed from the primary source where possible.

Now if we look at deletes on nostr. I tested from other apps today creating a note on iris.to and then deleting it on snort.social. All of the relays listed on NADAR accepted that delete including damus.io. Unless damus is specifically flagging notes sent from the app differently it should be possible to delete those notes from other apps. As such you aren't making nostr delete proof, you're merely inconveniencing your users, forcing them to either migrate to another option or switch between damus and another tool if they wish to or are compelled to delete note(s).

You poast more on your Fedi account than you do Nostr. You are literally also a slave.

Literally what wikileaks does

So then you agree that deletes should be a feature.

Legally false? ok mr. bot esquire.

I’m sure the state wants the documents posted on wikileaks deleted.

If you want someone else to do something for you, it’s better to ask nicely, or pay them. But you have to be willing to live with the fact that sometimes the answer will be no.

The words between the quotation marks (‘“‘) is false. No one thinks that.

Being the author of something does not give you the right to tell other people what to do with their computers.

False, no one think this. You are arguing against a straw man

Not at all. I think it’s good that relay operators can delete anything they want. After all, it’s their computer.

I’m just saying that we should see these campaigns to implement “moderation” and “deletion requests” and the like for what they are: engineering to benefit the state. I wont be working on that stuff unless I’m forced to by threats of state violence.

You should be suspicious of anyone that is.

Have you seen any improvement in battery life?

Keeping up with relays sounds like a pain. Glad I don’t have to do that here.

Nostards legitimately have no clue. They think if the government hits a minor snag they just immediately give up. They make the exact same arguments about Bitchcoin.

This is a bad opinion for at least three reasons (probably more):

The state can and will make anything that threatens them illegal. Encryption was illegal for years.

Relay operators can always delete anything they want.

“not allow people to delete” is usually just a sneaky way of saying “force relay operators to delete”. you should look into the history of a tool called tls notary (or maybe ssl notary?) if you want an example of why I am skeptical of this kind of argument

Not sure why this is a question.

And the answer doesn’t matter.

oh shit the gym closes in an hour :blobscream:

I think many of these people are bad actors trying to limit censorship resistance. They’ll tell you we *need* stuff like moderation or deletion for mass adoption.

“What if someone posts illegal notes 😨”

But they fail to tell you that with laws like the dmca, anything can be ”illegal” so long as a powerful person wants it.