mikedilger on Nostr: I think I agree with all that. I still don't understand why the tag was seen as ...
I think I agree with all that.
I still don't understand why the tag was seen as unethical. It doesn't collide with any of the ethics you list in this post. I'm not pushing for such a tag anymore, I'm not sure it was the right solution to the problem. But I never heard an ethics-based argument against it. I think I have high integrity and consider the ethics of everything I do, and if I have a blindspot I want to know about it.
Is it that one party of a conversation shouldn't have more power than the other? I agree, and I don't think the tag does this. The tag only dead-ends the event that the tag itself is in. The conversation of the parent can progress, it cannot stop other people's conversation. So it only dead-ends the authors own event.
Anyhow, I doubt you have an actual answer here, I think it's just your feeling.
I still don't understand why the tag was seen as unethical. It doesn't collide with any of the ethics you list in this post. I'm not pushing for such a tag anymore, I'm not sure it was the right solution to the problem. But I never heard an ethics-based argument against it. I think I have high integrity and consider the ethics of everything I do, and if I have a blindspot I want to know about it.
Is it that one party of a conversation shouldn't have more power than the other? I agree, and I don't think the tag does this. The tag only dead-ends the event that the tag itself is in. The conversation of the parent can progress, it cannot stop other people's conversation. So it only dead-ends the authors own event.
Anyhow, I doubt you have an actual answer here, I think it's just your feeling.