@FediTips @gabboman @eris @dansup @chuff this is the correct answer. Trying to take open social media format and forcing it to become a closed private network is the very definition of trying to take a square peg and make it fit a round hole. Use the right tool for the job

@dansup @FediTips @eris @gabboman @chuff I love your projects and tenacity, but this perspective surprises me. Social media, from even the times of its oldest ancestors like SixDegrees, thrived with intimate interaction (not to be confused with private interaction). The "everything full visible from everyone to everyone at once" model is fairly contemporary. And even platforms that use that model are dwarfed in market share by the platforms that offer fluid intimate interaction options (e.g. groups, visibility management, connection degrees, dynamic visibility of specific content components).

Post script: For those unfamiliar, an easy way to think about interaction
- "Private" is singing in your shower
- Public is being on stage at a concert
- Intimate is being the couple cuddling in the crowd at the concert, whom no one else is much paying attention to even though they are publicly able to be seen by those around them. Their interactions aren't of interest to the public despite the fact that they're interacting with each other in a public place.

And social networks that lean hard into public focused designs are more like a Coldplay concert 😆😬👀

Not even [..] Emacs can do that.