i personally am not that hot on moderation of lists either, i think people can do that by themselves, if the UI makes muting simple and actually working
really really don't like what i consider to be the "reddit" redefinition of blocking into "muting" at all, or the practise of hiders tempting you to click on them like a big red button labeled "don't press me" it's inflammatory and unhelpful... i want to see my mute list, i click on my configuration, i don't want it to be part of the main interface
first you have a relay defined access control list enforced with nip-42 auth, and then you also can revoke access as well as specifically block npubs that may be included as "guest" members due to one or several of the first-level whitelisted users, this is the "infiltration" problem that is often used in open communities, it can be stopped by either blocking one or two stray (blacklisting) or if several of the users are falling for their bullshit, they can just be "nope, cancel, money back, here you are now fuck off"
the thing is that these rigid, hierarchic style of access controls like defined for nip-29 are prone to being taken over by psycho bitchez who want to lord over their little cult den and this is something that we need to give the common pleb user some power to influence, and by normalizing blocking people and a the chatroom deciding to collectively ignore some asshat who is trying to infiltrate a group the onus on the relay owners is less and this also makes it easier to join several relays together that may have some overlap but not complete overlap of membership
at the centre of my philosophy about this is that the more power you put back in the hands of the user, the less levers you give to toxic bitchez who just want to be the authoritaah in a non-hierarchic group, and that's not ok with me, and i don't think it helps by letting me decide that, it's better if there can be a progressive escalation of response that comes from the individuals instead of having to travel up through centralised networks
yeah, the idea is that if someone is unliked by the whole group they all end up muting this asshat
and if it's something that only bugs a minority, they leave, stop subscribing to the chat of that group
the role of the relay owner (and there can be many) is to control access at the edge of that process, so, in theory, you can have like 2 relays joined and many overlapping clients passing messages back and forth between users connected to each side
but it could happen that on one relay, you have faction A, and another relay, faction B and they can thus peacefully decide to be separated if the relay owner is good about this and realises that it's best for everyone to let the cult drones have their #hashtag on one side and the rest of us on the other, you see what i mean?
this is a dynamic process and this is why ... and it makes me sad that i have to harp on about this but really, the modern kids have been brainwashed by modern social apps to have this belief that moderation is some magic wand that just happens and they don't realise it's done for the benefit of advertisers and spook agencies involved in mass manipulation campaigns
Showing page 1 of
1 pages
