No, I think it's important to retain mutability. Anything you post on the internet now functions the same way; everyone who has viewed it received a copy, and t

No, I think it's important to retain mutability. Anything you post on the internet now functions the same way; everyone who has viewed it received a copy, and there's no way to ensure that the content is actually gone from everyone's machine; it probably exists in the browser cache of most recipients, etc. However, I think one of the big things that cryptonerds and other people deeply involved in developing this type of technology overlook is that most people don't want a system that tells them "good luck retracting anything you ever publish". Integrating this as a "feature" is actually an active barrier to adoption. Yes, it's true that you can't ever guarantee all copies of something have been destroyed after they've disseminated, but you can still provide the facilities necessary to signal that the content owner wants that to happen, and create an expectation that blessed clients will observe that signal internally. We need to provide mutability at least on par with the current experience if we expect one of these alternate social protocols to pick up steam. These are popping up like flies recently, and most overlook this.