I don't find these reasons particularly compelling.
"To help clients that don't yet implement reports..."
In what way would this help those clients? They should probably just implement reports rather than just having a warning sign emoji show up as a reaction to a post. And that is assuming they have that array of reaction types available. As mentioned by @ hodlbod, if they haven't implemented reports, they may also only have one reaction type visible in the client, and users of #Amethyst just have to hope they don't display all kind 7 reactions as a positive reaction on their client.
"...to help content indexers figure out how good a post is..."
While negative reactions, when they are unambiguously negative, can help content indexing, so could reports, and with less ambiguity. I can think of situations when I might react with what could be considered a negative reaction, but not because I don't value the post at all, or wish it hadn't shown up in my feed. For instance, someone might post about how there are parents intentionally mutilating their children because they "feel" like they are a different gender, and the OP is clearly against this. I would probably react with a puke emoji 🤮 IN AGREEMENT with the OP, even though that is a clearly negative reaction. Likewise, if someone posts something alarming about some garbage that is being put into processed food that I had no idea was the case, I might react with ⚠️. That should not reflect on how "good" the post is, as it might be a very good post about the dangers of processed garbage in our food. However, reports should definitely have bearing on how good a post is, and lack of reactions can speak as loudly as reactions.
"...to help clients that do not want to implement reports because they see as too harsh and/or form of censorship."
I am unsure how this helps such clients either. If they don't want to implement reports, then reports just won't show up in their client. Reactions may show up, if they have the ability to display a wide variety of reactions, but anyone using the client won't necessarily know that a ⚠️ reaction means the note was reported on another client, unless the client displays that specific type of reaction as a report, in which case they should just implement kind 1984.
It is my understanding that how "soft" or "hard" a report function is can be determined by each client, right? Each client can choose what a report results in for their client. Maybe one client will blur any images on notes that have been reported by people you follow. Another will do so with anyone in your entire web-of-trust. A more harsh client may choose to hide all posts that have been reported by your web-of-trust by default, and only show them if you turn this feature off in your settings. But ultimately, each client decides how a report affects their users' feeds, so it can be as "soft" as any client prefers it to be, including doing nothing with the information at all, or simply displaying something saying "5 people you follow have reported this note," but showing the note to you anyway.
Login to reply
Replies (3)
Ok, if that is not enough. Let me give you more (yes, there is more).
If you are in a client that doesn't support reports and you make post people don't like and they start reporting on Amethyst, your post will disappear from everywhere and you won't even know.
If we send the warning reaction, you will know that some people are reporting you and your post and in some cases whole profile is now tainted.
I always side with letting people know, even when their client doesn't want them to know.
Having diverse clients is good because it supports user choice. Implementing certain features in such a way that it hijacks other clients' feature set to support your opinions about how they should be built seems antithetical to user choice and an open protocol.
I do also want to take objection with the statement that a users posts that get reported "will disappear from everywhere" without them knowing why. This simply isn't true.
Per NIP-56: A report is a kind 1984 event that signals to users and relays that some referenced content is objectionable. The definition of objectionable is obviously subjective and **all agents on the network (users, apps, relays, etc.) may consume and take action on them as they see fit.**
Some relays may eject all notes that receive a report, others won't. Some clients may choose to hide all notes that receive reports, and others will only display a warning, or nothing at all. Some will only take action if the content came from someone you follow, or who is within your web-of-trust, and others may simply set a threshold of needing to receive a certain number of reports on a particular post. Still others may only hide the note for the person who made the report.
The point is,it doesn't just disappear everywhere. It depends entirely on what relays and clients choose to do with reports, if they choose to do anything at all.