> However, I disagree with some of the analysis, and have a couple specific points to correct.

[gert@social.coop]

@cwebber We need symmetry and Big Tech will never ever give it to us even if they promise.

[ulrikehahn@fediscience.org]

@darius would one answer be to point out that on that perspective humans in real life would only ever ‘meaningfully participate’ in exceptional circumstances (i.e., when there is a wholly closed conversation for which all participants are present)

[semitones@tiny.tilde.website]

@darius @cwebber it seems like if your friends want to see every reply, then they may never agree that anything less than that is meaningful.

[darius@friend.camp]

@semitones right. Seems intractable

[dynamic@hub.netzgemeinde.eu]

@Semitones @Darius Kazemi @Christine Lemmer-Webber

If the issue were simply wanting to be able to see every *reply*, one viable approach for decentralized social media would be to give the OP ownership of replies, and then people (who are given permission by the OP to reply) decide whether or not to reply based on how they feel about the OP's moderation policies.  I do not know how technically challenging that is or isn't in ActivityPub in particular, but there are certainly solutions that don't require Bluesky's centralized approach.  

On the other hand, if people insist that they ought to be able to see every *message* on the network, then, yeah, that is indeed (as Darius says) intractable.

[darius@friend.camp]

@dynamic @cwebber @semitones right. I meant all messages period, not all replies to a post you're looking at

[jens@social.finkhaeuser.de]

@cwebber My only significant comment on this part is that there's a third option that few people seem to consider, but that @librecast is built around and @interpeer as well, albeit at a slightly different level:

What you call message passing would be unicast in a packet switching protocol like IP. One sender, one recipient.

What you call shared heap would be more like broadcast. One sender, all recipients.

There's also multicast. One sender, interested recipients *only*.

The fun part is...

[cwebber@social.coop]

Well hello.

So yesterday I stepped onto a crumbled piece of sidewalk, twisted and sprained my ankle, and fucked up my wrist. That, and I think I've said the most important things and this is day *three* of summarizing things from my blogpost, so I will be brief.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Sadly, I'm stopping where things take a positive turn in my article: talking about values, which I thought was a nice part of both @bnewbold and my articles.

I think the values/design goals Bryan did lay out are nice, and I talk more about ActivityPub and @spritely's values.

[cwebber@social.coop]

It was nice to be prompted about @spritely's values and it lead to a good conversation internally, and we did capture those in my blogpost, but I think that should be covered again from a more official organizational side, separate from this.

[cwebber@social.coop]

I also clarified a bit: the parts I'm concerned about with the did:plc stuff aren't as much the governance, and I think Bluesky is taking some good steps there by planning a certificate transparency log. That's good. Glad to see it.

[cwebber@social.coop]

I do think Bluesky is heading in a tough direction though in terms of community expectations vs the ATProto philosophy that replication and indexing of a firehose are the primary way things work.

It's a tough situation but Bluesky is speedrunning Twitter so fast it practically is Twitter.

[cwebber@social.coop]

People want Bluesky's devs to prevent their content from being replicated and indexed by people they don't like, well, I think it really is that: a *conflict*.

People were encouraged to join a Twitter replacement, they are expecting Twitter-like solutions. Can't blame 'em.

[cwebber@social.coop]

Given that "anyone can replicate and index!" is literally the *entire* design philosophy of ATProto, it's not going to be something easy to solve. I don't have an answer, but hey, I'm working on fairly fundamentally different designs, so it's not my problem to solve.

That said...

[cwebber@social.coop]

Like the present-day fediverse, Bluesky was majorly popularized by a bunch of queer people early on. As a trans person I watched a bunch of my friend join and felt so safe they posted things they never would have in today's environment when the community was small.

[cwebber@social.coop]

The decision about whether or not to boot horrible, well known transphobic people (protip: answer is yes) from the platform seems clear enough to me. I'm not sure the "speech vs reach" approach is working.

And it seems to me people are finding they don't have tools in their hands to do anything.

[cwebber@social.coop]

For all its faults, and there are *many* and I have *railed* against the instance-oriented approach to moderation on the fediverse and have been writing about and working towards alternatives for a while, instance moderation empowers better here.

I think this will be a real test for Bluesky.

[cwebber@social.coop]

But more broadly I think *neither* the present-day fediverse nor Bluesky meet the needs of the future.

The "global town square" is a social media concept invented by centralized social media in the early web 2.0 era.

Social media by millenials, for millenials. What's the future?

[cwebber@social.coop]

So to some degree, I don't have a lot of interest in trying to figure out what the solution to this is, because I think these are the wrong designs. I don't like the context-collapse firehose much at all, I'm interested in "contextual communication", "secure collaboration", and "healthy communities"

[cwebber@social.coop]

That's the kind of direction we're trying to build towards with @spritely, but as said, I'm dropping the values discussion here, that's something we'll talk about later in the week. I would like to talk about that independently, focusing there on what to build, not on a critique.