nobody

account deleted

Public Key

npub1603az74uehr9c5phdwlja2war5lk08scscej23ld0nuxhehf4ycsve6xd8

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsd8c73027vm3ju2qmkh0ew48w360m8ncvgvve9glkhe7rtum56jvgpgdmhxw309a4nwcnzv9jk2v34ddhhyunrveunw6e4x4k8yvncv46xwm3nwenngc3hvechq7ndv33xsurfvye8vuphd34k7um3v9jzummwd9hkunq8q2q

Publishing to

k7bbaee25korrcfy7k55lr2xetgn3vg4b7fqpzmdbhpia2vp7lkosqad.onion

Author Public Key

npub1603az74uehr9c5phdwlja2war5lk08scscej23ld0nuxhehf4ycsve6xd8

Show more details

Last Notes

2023-01-11 18:39:56 UTC

- reply

First example is indeed a good one. But do we send out messages (notes)?
Second one less, I think, because that would not be in digital form, right? And lets say they use a device for that digitalizing everything and keeping a record. If that would be the case, especially if a company does it, then yes I humbly think.

2023-01-11 16:42:37 UTC

- reply

Good idea (it does apply though :)). This is not something you can determine by terms and conditions :).

2023-01-11 16:41:41 UTC

- reply

In one or the other way, yes. Whatever data they have. But only if such a right exists in the specific situation (location of provider, marketing of provider etc)

2023-01-11 16:39:22 UTC

- reply

Yes, beautifully said. They can however “by design” allow business / operators of clients or relays to comply.
Lets also not call it GDPR :). Seeing such discussions in Japan and all over.

2023-01-11 16:34:22 UTC

- reply

You mean email provider? Than yes.

2023-01-11 16:32:09 UTC

- reply

Take the “want” out and don’t limit to “GDPR” :). We talking about a right to deletion, that exists or is going to exist globally. The goal here is to allow mass adoption, meaning overcoming more likely regulatory restriction (child protection on social media, right to self determine).
There is not personal preference in my arguments, just providing a critical opp to make things better.

2023-01-11 16:23:13 UTC

- reply

But then you just need to extend the nip to the client and require the relay to not give out the note unless the client complies. No?

2023-01-11 15:56:22 UTC

- reply

Client side?

2023-01-11 15:55:19 UTC

- reply

Both scenarios do not contradicts my suggestion but are rather the risk anyone has right now also on Twitter.
Actually, in the first of your scenarios the data would be still on relay a when you view it. So it is not stored on your client if I am not mistaken. Deleting it, would still make it disappear, no?

2023-01-11 15:19:06 UTC

- reply

note1pyre9k8xv7mwzun3dv08zwdhvgymcdktazvmjxfr2zsc50pqu8xs4ghydy

2023-01-11 15:18:02 UTC

- reply

https://damus.io/note1pyre9k8xv7mwzun3dv08zwdhvgymcdktazvmjxfr2zsc50pqu8xs4ghydy

2023-01-11 15:17:03 UTC

- reply

Hm. What about:
- determining a nip, which requires the relays to delete and not share to other relays and have the means to do so.
- informing the user whether the picked relays comply or not.
- implementing a function that only a person using relays that have implemented the nip can also receive a note that has been send with that assumption.
Would that not achieve the effect we are discussing. We can leave out the discussion of someone taking the information and publishing it somewhere else. That happens on Twitter and anywhere else.
No?

2023-01-11 13:02:29 UTC

- reply

SIN 🫣

2023-01-11 12:52:26 UTC

- reply

You think so? I do agree that it is always one (or more) steps behind technological progress, and it is also one or two steps removed from technical reality (as the people making the law struggle to understand and the legal tools are limited). But I do think it follows a logic and common sense. It works with an aim, that is here protect a certain fundamental right.
And leaving aside this more philosophical debate. Nostr and its clients will face regulatory reality after a critical mass. So did all social networks. Nostr is a protocol, yes, but for it to be usable, it needs to provide a fertile ground that considers at least the basics of these regulatory hurdles.
Anyhow, just my concern, loving it also without 😂⚡️

2023-01-11 12:47:20 UTC

- reply

😂🎊

2023-01-11 12:47:09 UTC

- reply

Yes, that is of course a discussion of definition. But lets say how Twitter has to be able to delete a post, that should be considered here as well. This means the tools to do so technically and organizationally. For instance a filter for relays with certain features such as deletion and not share with other relays etc.
How does nostr accomplish deletion (not hiding) at the moment? Asking because I am very curious to learn (limited IT background). 🙏🏻

2023-01-11 12:03:43 UTC

- reply

I do think there is a point of being able to delete. That should be possible and a personal choice by the person posting the note. Loosing the control of the note is something that I should be discussed.
Giving the person the right to delete a note and thereby the right to own your own speech goes a long way, I think. I would imagine a mandatory nip for relays that implements such a deletion function. The deletion request would than come from the same client used to publish the note and be broadcastet the same way.
Not sure if this is possible, but considering that such rights exist now all over the world, I see this being a potential regulatory down the road.
What do you think?

2023-01-11 05:04:50 UTC

- reply

Meaning it does not really “delete” and rather not displays on client side. Better call it a hide than delete button then.

2023-01-10 06:17:21 UTC

- reply

🤔?

2023-01-10 01:01:22 UTC

- reply

1 🤫

2023-01-07 00:02:46 UTC

- reply

This thing looks incredible!!!

2023-01-02 01:56:12 UTC

- reply

In re GDPR: the protection granted does not depend on citizenship but residence. So person living outside the EU/EEA would not fall under the GDPR. That would stretch the territorial scope of EU legislation (which is enormous as it is) a bit too far.