4 ms·

Yes, you delete by appending a delete event: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/7d792055372ce1af2205a1451e5e9fa110d73450/09.md https://github.com/nost

Yes, you delete by appending a delete event: https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/7d792055372ce1af2205a1451e5e9fa110d73450/09.md https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips/blob/7d792055372ce1af... Then clients and relays SHOULD act as if the referenced event is deleted. This is different than MUST, probably because there’s no way to guarantee it happens. It’s also possible the delete event doesn’t make it to everywhere that received the initial event.

hgsgm 3y ago
DELETE is never a MUST when it's sent to someone else computer.
- twothamendment 3y ago
  I demand you delete your comment!
kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
Social media sites are being siphoned up by various intelligence services, data brokers, quant trading firms. Everything you delete always has a window where it can be permanently recorded by someone. Even on HN. Anything you delete/edit isn't necessarily gone forever, even if it is no longer on the server you posted to.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  If I was one of these creepy organizations, “deleted, edited, or not posted” would have to be a pretty strong signal that I might be interested in it.
  - yellowapple 3y ago
    It's a key reason why I don't attempt to delete social media posts. I've said a lot of stupid shit over the years, and whether I like it or not, that stupid shit is permanent; any attempt to take it down would only serve to make it more interesting and more worthy of preservation. Better to let that stupid shit linger unnoticeably - or even better, embrace that I'm (hopefully) a better person than I was $N years ago. See also: the Streisand effect
    - tivert 3y ago
      > It's a key reason why I don't attempt to delete social media posts. I've said a lot of stupid shit over the years...any attempt to take it down would only serve to make it more interesting and more worthy of preservation. Only if someone cares enough about your social media to be watching for deletions, which I'd imagine is pretty rare. If no one's watching now, now is the right time to delete something. > See also: the Streisand effect I think it's important not to overstate that effect, as there are lots of scenarios where deletion will not draw more attention to something. For instance: you're a rando deleting something that's not interesting, not currently being observed, or something no one will notice when it's gone. The trope namer got hit by it because 1) she's a celebrity, and 2) removal would result in a noticeable gap.
      - yellowapple 3y ago
        Right, but how do I know that nobody's watching? Indeed, the idea that nobody's watching seems far-fetched; even if that somebody is some Internet archival robot or NSA monitoring tool or advertising algorithm, it seems more likely than not that all but the most recent posts would draw more attention if deleted than if left alone, whether I'm a nobody or a celebrity or somewhere in between.
        tivert 3y ago
        > Right, but how do I know that nobody's watching? A better way to think about it is: do you have good reason to think someone is actively watching you or will go through the effort to collate your social media posts against some archive (that will be incomplete unless you're an active target)? If you don't, delete away. If you're still concerned, delete some old stuff randomly to distract from the stuff you really want to delete. > even if that somebody is some Internet archival robot Those can't even scrape everything people actually want to keep, let alone comprehensively scrape every social media post from everyone. There are huge gaps. I actually was peripherally involved in some volunteer efforts to archive a bunch of stuff around the Hong Kong protests and the Afghanistan withdrawal. IIRC, they didn't even try to scrape Facebook posts (because FB was doing so much to thwart scraping, and there may have even been problems with Twitter). There are well-developed tools for YouTube, through.

hgsgm 3y ago

DELETE is never a MUST when it's sent to someone else computer.

twothamendment 3y ago
I demand you delete your comment!

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago

Social media sites are being siphoned up by various intelligence services, data brokers, quant trading firms. Everything you delete always has a window where it can be permanently recorded by someone. Even on HN. Anything you delete/edit isn't necessarily gone forever, even if it is no longer on the server you posted to.

bee_rider 3y ago
If I was one of these creepy organizations, “deleted, edited, or not posted” would have to be a pretty strong signal that I might be interested in it.
- yellowapple 3y ago
  It's a key reason why I don't attempt to delete social media posts. I've said a lot of stupid shit over the years, and whether I like it or not, that stupid shit is permanent; any attempt to take it down would only serve to make it more interesting and more worthy of preservation. Better to let that stupid shit linger unnoticeably - or even better, embrace that I'm (hopefully) a better person than I was $N years ago. See also: the Streisand effect
  - tivert 3y ago
    > It's a key reason why I don't attempt to delete social media posts. I've said a lot of stupid shit over the years...any attempt to take it down would only serve to make it more interesting and more worthy of preservation. Only if someone cares enough about your social media to be watching for deletions, which I'd imagine is pretty rare. If no one's watching now, now is the right time to delete something. > See also: the Streisand effect I think it's important not to overstate that effect, as there are lots of scenarios where deletion will not draw more attention to something. For instance: you're a rando deleting something that's not interesting, not currently being observed, or something no one will notice when it's gone. The trope namer got hit by it because 1) she's a celebrity, and 2) removal would result in a noticeable gap.
    - yellowapple 3y ago
      Right, but how do I know that nobody's watching? Indeed, the idea that nobody's watching seems far-fetched; even if that somebody is some Internet archival robot or NSA monitoring tool or advertising algorithm, it seems more likely than not that all but the most recent posts would draw more attention if deleted than if left alone, whether I'm a nobody or a celebrity or somewhere in between.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > Right, but how do I know that nobody's watching? A better way to think about it is: do you have good reason to think someone is actively watching you or will go through the effort to collate your social media posts against some archive (that will be incomplete unless you're an active target)? If you don't, delete away. If you're still concerned, delete some old stuff randomly to distract from the stuff you really want to delete. > even if that somebody is some Internet archival robot Those can't even scrape everything people actually want to keep, let alone comprehensively scrape every social media post from everyone. There are huge gaps. I actually was peripherally involved in some volunteer efforts to archive a bunch of stuff around the Hong Kong protests and the Afghanistan withdrawal. IIRC, they didn't even try to scrape Facebook posts (because FB was doing so much to thwart scraping, and there may have even been problems with Twitter). There are well-developed tools for YouTube, through.