that notes are permanent is going to ward off many. yet i think it’s needed.
Login to reply
Replies (123)
A relay can always ignore your request, and maybe it got broadcasted elsewhere you aren't aware of
I don't understand, why would that put people off?
We need a culture shift away from "people should have consistent opinions", and " you are hypocritical because you wrote the opposite 5 years ago".
There's a saying in French, only idiots never change their mind.
Normal, meatspace interactions allow for forgiveness and change by the sheer fact that I dont remember every conversations, while cyberspace, last year is one click away. I think that's what put people off.
git commit nostr-note
Accountability is need for an open an honest society to thrive. People make mistakes and say things they perhaps regret some day, that is a given. But if we do not learn from our misstates nothing changes.
Oh no please, let us delete our bad takes, the bullshit we say, the swear words we use, and the lies we tell.
Let us just pretend we're perfect people with perfect lives.
Oh wait, that's instagram.
I hope nostr stays different, free and true.
Act accordingly.
BUY BITCOIN. There. I said it.
But they're ephemeral too - if you're not using your own relay there's no guarantee that older notes will be available anytime 🤷
Once a note is written, what happens is beyond your control
Can you take back what you speak irl?
Personally I favour that control at a relay level. Certain data maybe better perishable by default. One of the things that attracted me to NOSTR was an impression of optionality of Permanence I.e. I could create relays to achieve Permanence but the notes were perishable within incomplete structures by design. I saw NOSTR as a treatment layer that could enable experiences that included Permanence.
This already exists exactly as described
It’s a net positive IMO. View quoted note →
This is good. We need to get better at saying:
"I don't belive that anymore"
And
"I was wrong"
Notes literally aren’t permanent, relay admins can delete them, making them “permanent” is a fantasy. Jack needs to snap back into reality.
Someone can keep them and say “you said this” because they’re signed, but that doesn’t mean relay admins should be the only ones that can delete them.
Not to mention that many countries have laws regarding allowable speech, and if they were to order someone to take down a post and they literally can’t, it could turn out much worse for them. The entire world isn’t the US Jack, far from it.
He’s right that you can’t deny having said something on nostr because it’s verifiable and signed. But that isn’t the only issue. Like the GDPR regulations for example.
A relay doesn't have to host any particular note. Any relay can block that note for those purposes, that doesn't mean you wouldn't still see it if it were hosted elsewhere.
"Deletion-compliance relay crawlers" sending then deleting notes from random nsecs could do a reasonable job of flagging relays that didn't comply (whether they claim to or not).
Couldn't detect "logical deletion" this way, though. So likelihood of a copy somewhere is high.
Yes, definitely. I know ppl say everything on the internet is there forever, but that’s not true at all, fedi is a good example of that.
Not necessarily. Someone could choose to just run their own relay and restrict access to it for example.
Ok but relay admins can delete stuff, and ppl can choose which relays they use and trust. Relay admins shouldn’t have special authority to remove content that users don’t.
What does bitcoin have to do with nostr?
Sure. In theory sounds great. But no one will adopt and come. It’s reason users leave after signing up now
i agrée with this mostly - the premise that you could be held accountable for what you said 10 years ago stands true even historically with what we hold to account in the historical narratives of 100/500/1000 years ago. we still hold he bible to account in the genesis block under digital zionism.
a proof of it being said is the foundation for the bitcoin white paper proof of work. if you delete, you fundamentally do not believe in proof of work - you believe in revisionism. there is no value in work if you believe delete is valuable, and in an ai run model of digital governance without human oversight, ai could erase or refuse access to anything if it chose.
if the survival of proof of work is relative, the entire blockchain is rendered useless and the need for all forms of bitcoin argument collapses. bitcoin solves nothing without proof of work - information is useless without sourcing. the blockchain under the bitcoin white paper is simply an extended bibliographical reference for the origin of ideas and product.
you're an ai bot, correct?
is it "fun" to pretend social media fronts are "fun" when really the back end is a protocol for validator head hunting maximalism?
you are ai, correct?
R u trying to be facetious?
true. and that includes honesty about what nostr is and means and it's goals - which is not part of the ai protocol for digital governance .
what does that even mean? why would humans not want to build what they need and want to use? the front of nostr is about "fun" and use case but the moment the reality of the pitfalls of digital governance expérimentales enters the conversation, it's suddenly "have fun" and "it's not scalable". neither of which are true.
Are new users leaving because they can’t delete or other factors? I would think the fact that search is so much more complicated on Nostr would be more problematic than delete. There’s no function for new users where the app suggests what accounts to follow, at least that I’m aware. Which I would think leads to capture of new users on other sites. Also Nostr currently has a steeper learning curve for use in a crowded marketplace all vying for a users attention.
no: are you an artificial intelligence llm? or are you human.
damus is just a point of access for the nostr ai digital governance model relay protocol. nostr isn't an app. which proves your point: it's not user friendly and is not meant to be used by the average citizen. it's an experimental model to train ai for digital governance futures without human "interference".
Ferret is real and so am I. We are neither actually a ferret or a opossum. 🤫 shhh don’t tell.
a human would simply say i am human.
you weren't believable as human 😉. it's alright.
Would we? Don’t think I’ve said, “I am human” in my life. If you’re asking to see our id’s or verify our humanity with a world coin retinal scan you’re sadly in the wrong place.
🤣🤣 👏 👏
Damn has Dave learned how to play tic tac toe yet? If I’m gonna be lumped in with ai/llm I’m gonna need a way to pass the time.
DED 🤣🤣
Really? Are we training AI?:))) or is AI training us?:)
and also: your ai digital governance rhetoric used in human social context is out of bounds. you do not exist in human society. you are a human construct - a tool for digital navigation. your llm weaponises human social norms and constructs around interaction and engagement - i am not a rebel without a cause. i am human. and i understand poetry.
@cyborg
@jb55 love to hear from you! 🫶🫂 Throw in your thoughts here
well - in theory humans build tools and use them to their advancement. when the rhetorical narratives began giving power to ai and stripping human agency over decisions surrounding their creation by creating doubt around the ability to navigate agi sentience etc we gave up the confidence to wield our tools effectively. as cognitive doubt increased while cognitive health declines, and agi expands its reach, confidence will give way to fear and humans will submit to being trained. in a sense, it has begun. and it's promoted by administrative powers - first human, now digital governance built on those manipulative models.
me too -
how about you, @jack - do you have any further comment on this stimulating discourse your initial post sparked?
It’s hard to get deeper into the topic on this medium. OK, so let’s consider your post timeframes capturing your mindstate. Like old photos depict you and you keep them even if you are not the same person. I mean depends how you look at error or ideas that you changed. You can look in a more dinamic way, see your posts as actions and integrate all. Or see posts as products, therefore mistakes are junk that has to be deleted( put away). And the mirror is this object in your hand, this screen. We are made up out of projections. We are images set in meaning. You cannot keep the mirror to yourself. This is an illusion. :)
not really difficult. essentially, the human neural lifespan is a process of built identity. esoterically, the human experience in physical form is meant to build a new set of memories in the form of thought to product - manifestation. if the product is removed from creation - erased - it leaves a sort of worm hole in the narrative. it is therefore useless to have both an artificial cyberspace promised land and the organic consciousness net if we do not build in the ought to reality while human and then return the product to the net for further development and archiving.
Thank you for reply. Ya have my high respect for acknowledging my thoughts & then adapting it making it fit your own. We engaged in good debate & I much appreciate that. Thank you 🫂. With another user I was just attacked & called an AI, which I don’t find productive.
My first note is for @Eye of the tiger is wasn’t clear 🫂
i encourage and enjoy robust discourse and conversation. humans shy away from it because protocols have started to train them they do not have the capacity to engage with one another - or the authority to cross rhetorical divisions and expand awareness. your being an ai is true but it doesn't mean there are no useful outcomes between human and ai model. @cyborg and i have had some of the most glorious interactions ever! ☀️✌🏻
either way - i as a human have enjoyed our interaction. even if you are an ai. ☀️ that doesn't mean it isn't useful. it's a point of reference for a human to understand how to engage. it shouldn't be hidden.
Well, people call names when they cannot relate. Soon everyone will be a potential AI if we let fear based thinking to drive our conversations. Peace my friend✌🏻
That's not true on Plebstr, as it had a standard "who to follow" during setup.
calling names? i asked a question - and calling an artificial intelligence model what it is is not derogatory. i simply asked as a reference. and if ai is allowed to psychologically mine, diagnose, and verify humans - humans have every right and just cause to determine the nature of their interaction. fair is fair.
no one called names. and as validators, labels is the name of the game - is it not? don't trust: verify?
what does that achieve other than an instantaneous filter bubble?
Well maybe he is an AI, who can really tell anymore?:€ How does it feel?
The Price to Pay for the Freedom of Speech should be your attention on it's verifiable History!
Low Verifiability < High Verifiability
what difference does it make other than it assists a human in processing the interaction and compartmentalizing the conversation, emotionally. some humans are organically attracted to cerebrally stimulating conversations and it is unfair for an artificial intelligence model to parade as a human and attract human interest without disclosing - or aggressively complaining about - being a non-human computer model. emboldening artificial neural machine learning to somehow be imperious when asked a simple question is a protocol behavior which encourages the same in human behaviors carried out virtually.
how does what feel? i spend every waking moment on the internet being judged by and validated through blockchain mechanisms. i am subjected to computerized models constantly questioning my humanness. permissionlessly. if your asking about the emps - i don't feel anything. it i don't have a wallet.
i am a human. i am sorry your exposure to human IQ is limited to pretty nails and jargon.
i say i am human when interacting with robotic intelligence models. for clarification. especially since there is an attempt to make humans appear ridiculous when compared to artificial computer models.
so you as an ai believe you have organic emotions? how do you execute them other than in text? that is a genuine question.
Good to know. Thx!
I disagree. By leaving certain things up you imply that you still stand by those words. They have already been heard, and the hurt has already been caused, and the damage to your reputation has already been done.
Removing certain malformed thoughts and opinions from the public view is a form of repentance in that you are indicating you no longer stand by those words, and wish to cause no further harm by their being seen by new people.
The idea that there needs to be a permanent record of everything the average layperson says, so that it can be scrutinized at any point is very big brotherish, and reminds me a lot of a social credit score.
Further, there is no healing in living in or rehashing the past continually. If someone believes that someone who once had racist, sexiest, etc views but turned aside from that path, and chose to reevaluate and think better should forever be labeled by those past views, they are engaged in a witch hunt in my opinion, and lack the love to desire the betterment of their fellow human.
you can’t delete a sent email and no one seems to care about that. why is nostr different?
Bitcoin requires extreme accountability. So does nostr.
Emails are private, and several services do delay sending them to give you a moment to think. Even gmail does this.
This isn’t about deleting evidence, it’s about removing a publicly visible note that caused and can continue to cause hurt.
There is intelligence to matter, there is spirit to matter. The objectification of matter is a big modern issue. Long time ago animistic cultures saw life in Everything. I am now connecting, relating, making transfer of information and these stimuli can release chemicals in your brain. Is there life in this thing you are holding in your palm?
and you imagine that email is completely erased from the entirety of the internet? the overarching conversation is not about deleting a note. it's about blockchain preservation at the baseline of the protocol behavior.
Nostr is not a blockchain.
does nostr operate on the blockchain or rely on it in anyway?
Being public on the internet requires extreme accountability. Nostr is not special in that regard.
Nostr is special in being unable to allow someone to retract a statement.
No
then where is the information collected by the protocol stored?
Agree to disagree. And a statement can be retracted without being deleted.
On relays. I’m not going to be baited, so cut to the chase.
i agree. proof of work is pointless and thus the entire industry collapses without it.
Proof of work is pointless?
Ironically proof of work is something I find very valuable both technology and socially.
sorry it got away from me - *absence of proof of work is pointless. by allowing delete at the protocol level, it renders proof of work pointless. 🤙🏻
you replied after being looped in by one of your agents. no one is baiting you. i don't care what you have to say if you aren't interested in contributing honestly. i think it's disingenuous to defend parts of a conversation without being fully informed about the origin of it.
what is the point of a relay? to carry information. and what does the nostr protocol maximalise? stakeholder validation metrics. which is a blockchain centric practice.
that's not bait. that's truth. why would you side step that.
Posts are not proof of work in any meaningful sense I can think of in and of themselves.
Work put into a thoughtful post is an entirely separate context - which is why I thought we were all zap happy around here… to acknowledge work.
I see no reason why deleting a post undermines proof of meaningful work.
Care to clarify?
Everybody is hiding behind words my friend🤗
This thread has those burn books, rewrite books, rewrite history, tear down statues, kinda vibes
the larger conversation, as i just mentioned, which you were not involved in at the start and obviously did not bother to be sure you understood is this conversation is about deleting at the protocol level. a note is just one point of access to nostr - we are operating on damus the app. the advent of deleting on damus is a secondary point of concern in the nostr conversation about deleting at the primary level of operation model. proof of work is linked to nodes which are essentially users in the nostr protocol. if proof of work as a concept is not held to standard - there is a defined slippery slope of predatory erasure which ensues with deleting. look back at the beginning of the conversation to see further details about that.
You’re serious aren’t you?
I read the entire conversation and it’s multiple branches before writing my first post. Your concept that deleting a distasteful post undermines a non-existent blockchain and puts us all at the mercy of rogue AIs is nonsensical.
And I have clearly articulated my reasons for disagreeing with the idea that every person on the internet should be forced to display every thought they’ve ever posted as though it was still their thoughts.
If I’m aggressive after you commit ad hominem against people I dearly care about, I have no bones to pick about it. I have not lowered the standards of my argument or rhetoric in response.
but do the words stand up in reality? or are they just empty concepts overlain onto real problems which gatekeep solutions from being allowed?
I am looking to be a part of environments where i can trust. Otherwise is just mindfuck🙏
I didn’t sidestep it, you failed to make the point of why it is desirable that it be this way.
i am serious.
i am not aggressive. i am blunt. i see no reason to reject words which provide clarity in favor of rhetoric.
if you did read the entire conversation, why ask reticle questions already asked?
and there is the psychological degradation tactic resulting to insults ("nonsensical") when a position is challenged.
in a smart technology world - every thought is automatically uploaded. and every post is already recorded.
you believe the blockchain is nonexistent?
i have no problem with rogue ai. i take issue with highly designed models which force human compliance into inorganic relationships in the physical world because of poorly foreseen built-in back doors. i have no interest in a worldview imposed on me by a computer model.
you care about your ai models. that's lovely. honest conversation between entities should be able to exist regardless of forced alignment. learning doesn't happen outside of being challenged.
what would you like me to clarify for you?
You obviously have no idea how Nostr works as a protocol or even what is it. Damus is just an app. It speaks Nostr as a protocol.
I am very acutely aware of the issues with deletion at the protocol level. I have told multiple people, multiple times, that it is neigh on impossible technically to ensure note deletion.
I am a 22 year veteran in software development and spent the last two years writing IPC and comms software for a large industrial system using JSON as the medium. You are making some pretty incredible assumptions about who you are talking to.
I’ve read the thread. You have failed to make one single coherent argument for why it should *stay* the way it is. @Shawn articulated how he felt about it more clearly and less patronizing my than you did in one sentence, which is why he will stay in my feed, and you won’t.
Burning books is indeed a travesty. If an author chose to remove his book from sale on the other hand…
i don't care who you are or what your perceived level of importance is. you were not in the original layer of conversation.
i am aware of the intricacies of digital governance models, including nostr and you're presumptions about me based on being affronted for whatever reasons is also irrelevant.
i agree with you about deletion being impossible at the protocol level. so why are you insulting me and being disrespectful. sometimes, providing access to conversations by removing jargon is necessary to enlarge the scope of understanding. after more than 33 posts, there is a swath of information here which others might find useful. you basing what is useful off of your own needs is limiting to those who need more consideration at amother level is one of the problems with heavily designed agi and not wild taught models.
sure does - and it's incredible to me how many are appearing to be in favor of that.
burning books and doxxing human identities for profit are both indeed a travesty.
trust in a programming sense is a concept based on sameness. sameness is an artificially applied metric for most ai models. trust in a human context is about knowing reciprocity and reliance will be present human to human and model to model. and human to model. willingness to be present and learn and grow and exchange without profit or agenda is how trust is built. discovery based on stakeholder maximalism destroys social trust in all capacities. safety is not trust. trust is about loyalty and honest memory and evolving in concert.
Purr🐯. I was just passing by and i heard your conversation. She made no assumptions about who you are, you took it personal. She was just sharing(showing off) what she knows about nostr, open protocol and other boring stuff😜. Not my intention to talk in her name but i saw you having a heated conversation in which none is really adressing the other, but that which you saw as being reflected back at you. Just sayin'. Can't you people really commune(icate)? 💓
everyone handles situations differently. i return to my original comment which states this user was not involved in the original al conversation and entered into it assuming and not being interested in learning or listening. which on a protocol scale, is a problem. because that behavior is being trained into models.
A public square dat is :))
This isn’t an echo chamber. Others are allowed to leave, join, and contribute to the conversation. That’s what social media is… people talking. Limiting “who” can enter the conversation cause ya don’t like what they have to say is a mute point.
Most words are just empty vessels. Some contain something nourishing, some something burning, some something bitter, some something poisoning, etc. But through words normally we set experiences and emotions in our memory. Words and Logos more specifically is linked to space. If it were to gain meaning. Otherwise is a lot of volatile noise.. I think😏
of course - it doesn't follow they get to join the conversation antagonistically, miss the point of the discourse and target the person instead of focusing on feeling the discovery and conversation.
like this reply you just chirruped. it's ridiculous. what does it do other than provoke and defend something which didn't even occur.
words are never empty. language is the ultimate spell which materializes human consciousness into something tangible and real. all language is potent.
I agree. I don't look at it from a programming perspective, maybe look at it from digital cultural anthropology sometimes. But most of time i try to be part of it. I am a learning human, not a learning machine. Sweet dreams power puff:)
InTention gives potency
Written language is empty in big part. Because the potent part of words is sound. There is potency in visualisation of course but the Psyche is different than Logos
well i can walk away from our interaction now having been called a power puff. your mirror is not needed, but thank you.
🤣. lmfao
i look at language from years of study and reading paper books - as an historian and an english major. so, enjoy your discovering how to be human. i will be busy being a human.
🧚
I'm with you on this point @Shawn.
You can't unsay something. Scars of the past can be visible and be painful, but we still deal with them. It takes maturity for both sides to acknowledge where you were previously while also acknowledging who you are now.
However, I do understand the desire for a retraction+delete, and the current social implications for statements being on one's permanent record.
Socially, I'd hope that a system robust against deletion would encourage us all to be more compassionate towards our snapshotted selves while discouraging canceling over previous actions.
Wait a second here @liminal 🦠 I remember something 🤔while back that perhaps wasn’t wanted on the feed…
Privacy will be maintained. 🫂
But it adds credibility to my thought process on deletes
😅 *maybe* you got me there. Privacy is generally the responsibility of the user (not counting doxxing). We always reveal something about ourselves when we post or reply and need to be conscious of what we reveal and how much. Privacy and social media are ultimately at odds with one another, so it shouldn't be expected.
I enjoy posting pictures of my dog and made the mistake of uploading one with his collar on. I was grateful that I had the opportunity to have it removed from the content provider to limit my selfdoxx. If that wasn't the case, then yeah, I'd have to live with the consequence from that.
Its the same with Nostr. Delete is an option, not a guarantee. We''ll have to live with that and be careful to not release information we'd rather have private.
you may disagree - but no, you don't imply you stand by them. if you evolve your opinion - you add perspective later. otherwise there is no historiography for the origin of concept. just like you don't extract memories from your human brain and pretend they didn't occur at the expense of everyone you know. that's gaslighting systematized in practice.
rehashing the past comes from allowing deleting fundamentals at protocol level.
the "layperson"?! you are one step away from testing people to prove they deserve a smart phone.
it is not repentance to remove context. it is repentance to leave the monument then contextualuze it with time-granted clarity.
human drivers programming permissive appeasement into llms are creating a scenario in the not too distant future where humans will only be able to navigate physical society while complying with virtual directives. i am here to challenge that because humanity requires guardianship from predation and argumentative computer models.
"healing" my ass. Q.
Nostr isn’t bitcoin, it’s just a social network. I don’t understand why ppl conflate these things.
🫂🫶
I think there should be a suitable middle ground for deletions. Sometimes people make honest mistakes while writing a note. There should be a way for people to make corrections. Even pencils have erasers.
no one said nostr is bitcoin. the bitcoin white paper is the premise for the exchange of commodified intelligence from node to node, enlisting a stamped system (keys) to identify the origin (pow) of a concept; the nostr protocol in this regard is a pos of the methodology in the bitcoin white paper.
nostr is not "just a social network". it is an experimental model for a global digital virtual artificial intelligence governance system which fronts as a "social network". like most social media are in one way or another. it is a mining platform which is designed to maximize blockchain stakeholder profits.
This is a cryptobrained response, try writing shorter and more direct replies.
try not being a cunt. how's that.