Gregory's Server@drq @BigFoxBoss @mo but we use this references to build the thread. So changing it's semantic will change thread structure with all issues we discussed above
|
14 comments
 @BigFoxBoss Every social network deals with note keeping, and note sharing. And they *are* organized, somehow. Could as well be organized differently. > Social networks are disposable by design. I disagree > Try to scroll through someone's garbage meme page to find something useful they said ages ago. That's archive organization issue, not the social network paradigm issue. @BigFoxBoss Because a blog is a type of personal archive - a journal, a diary. We discussed it the other day in the cryptography museum, it was a nice talk.  @mittorn Microblog is a type of blog. And Fediverse is not only microblogs, it accomodates all media. (and yes, I'm toying with an idea of making a book based on the entirety of my or whoever else's posts around here) @mittorn By your metric, nothing is, because everything (literally everything) is impermanent, and prone to degradation as time goes on. > Obsidian was made specifically for that purpose. Fedi was not At this point, I'm not interested in "what it was made for" but "what else can it do" or "what else we can do with it". And I see very curious things if you change things up a lil bit. |
@mittorn I don't really want to change its *semantic*. Reply is a reply.
But I do want to change it to be handled more naturally, more akin to how actual people converse. We generally don't reply to each person separately, if we're in group conversation (that would be a pain), and the Fedverse is one huge worldwide gangbang of group conversation, and that's what I like about it, and it's also why I am frustrated with the current tree model as it is.
Also, what we're doing here is basically writing organizing notes. So there's a possiblilty for "the Obsidian effect", where you build a graph of every note you have and then find a point or a place on a graph every note converges to, and that's where you start getting new ideas. I want this, but on the global and collective scale.
Of course, I know that this is wild speculation. Do you think I don't know that it will be a demanding change, technically? Come on. Give me *some* fucking credit.
@BigFoxBoss @mo
@mittorn I don't really want to change its *semantic*. Reply is a reply.
But I do want to change it to be handled more naturally, more akin to how actual people converse. We generally don't reply to each person separately, if we're in group conversation (that would be a pain), and the Fedverse is one huge worldwide gangbang of group conversation, and that's what I like about it, and it's also why I am frustrated with the current tree model as it is.