Relay operators are responsible/trusted to verify reports. There is no client operator. You can take the responsibility as the developer but in this case the system will be gamed in accordance with how popular clients are programmed.

Why can relays use it but clients cannot?

Think about impersonation accounts. There is a classic Damus impersonator that most Damus users reported and thus show with warnings on Amethyst. If you are being impersonated, you will find the report system very useful to let your followers know that is not you. And it's fully decentralized.

I agree. That’s why I’m differentiating between personal client-side filtering and report events

Think about impersonation accounts. There is a classic Damus impersonator that most Damus users reported and thus show with warnings on Amethyst. If you are being impersonated, you will find the report system very useful to let your followers know that is not you. And it's fully decentralized.

Feel like personal content curation is in the domain of clients, ie not report events. UI could offer users a way to do this but it wouldn’t alone stop report event abuse.

Sorry, not the event id. They are not writing that this is just "bad content". They are just writing full-on "Spam" and "Explicit" reports. They could create another category for "Bad Content". But they are not doing it.

Well, they are not writing in the event. So, all everybody else sees is literally "Spam", "Explicit" and others. I am not sure why.

Can you give an example event id? I cannot find anything with "bad content" tag on Damus's relay. I only see spam, illegal, and explicit

The only thing you cannot decentralize from is your body (for now..)

“Some report tags only make sense for profile reports, such as impersonation”

“Some”

For ultimate options and customisations, roll your own client.

I want options and customisability in an app. His design philosophy doesn't seem to allow for that. It's about time I tried some other clients anyway.

And yet people use the term "single-use seals" as if it was some new invention or if it could do anything on their own (i.e. without a blockchain to back them up).

Good points. I agree.

1. This is no worse than a .github folder

2. Yes. I think we should try to solve for bitcoin core project first.

3. Yes this is a concern

4. Yeah there are some “light client” use cases, I think these can be serviced by relays implementing our hypothetical protocol

I really like this as a solution. Here are some thoughts:

1. Projects may be resistant to embedding repository metadata like this directly into the commit history. Perhaps this isn't a big issue issue. It would be interesting to gauge opinion on this.

2. All commits and merges that take over as the new tip must be PGP signed. This may be a barrier for some projects but potentially less so for projects that would be attracted to a more decentralized option.

3. The rules for transferring repository ownership must be resistant to a compromised PGP key but also a key loss by one maintainer.

4. It maybe hard to extract this information for other usages without the repo being cloned. For example a nostr client may want a list of maintainers for things such as issue and PR moderation.

We could write a git server that allows commits signed by maintainers to be written without authentication / user accounts.