We need #ProtocolsNotPlatforms for reliable, safe, future-proof communication @evan

@evan
"Yes, but..." they should still speak the same protocol.

@evan No but, different account with different levels of public visibility and retention.

@evan "No, but…"

"You do want a different feature set. And honestly? Different *accounts* is nice."

@evan yes-- I think public and private posting have very different social and technical implications, and it's dangerous to confuse them. Private posting generally has bilateral, consensual "friendships" instead of unilateral "follows", so the model is somewhat different. At a minimum, the UX for creating private vs. public posts should be visually different, to reduce risk of publicly posting private info. I myself would prefer separate feeds, but others might want a mixed feed.

@evan Many platforms, open protocols, unified clients

@evan

sad I missed this one. we need a social media for the public square and attention democracy, and an agreed upon best way to do groups. maybe they overlap but people need to think about what they are doing and what they want out of both. otherwise we'll get lots of complaining and both won't get to be as nice as they could be.

I love #ActivityPub for the former, and wish #matrix could be more like discord for the latter (with messaging and audio/video calls). then interoperate!

Thanks all who responded. I said no, but. I think we should be able to participate in "the public square" -- having an open discussion with acquaintances and strangers interested in the same topics -- using the same tools as we do for "personal updates" -- family photos, focus on friends in trouble, work considerations. However, I think those platforms need good affordances so you can easily tell when the loudspeaker is on, and you don't mix levels of privacy accidentally.

@evan The more time passes the more I think Social media is best when it's small scale, but not for private communication.
Private communications should be made in private! Messaging, calling, and most of all face to face. If this is what you call "private social networks" then my answer would be yes, they need to be separated.
But in the larger sense of "social networking" I think it should be kept semi-public. Like in real life, even when I speak in public, the whole word doesn't need to hear it.

@evan
I think it depends on how you consider private. Think signalgate. We need some gated communities that do not put themselves at risk due to small mistakes. Hence Seperation might be necessary.

So yes, there is need for gated communities w/o entry for big tech or the typical regulars.

They can use the same stack tho.