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.

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

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)

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.

You mean email provider? Than yes.

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.

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?

Client side?

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?

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?