I’m still more in favor of (replyto:…). It’s easier to implement and the whole edits-breaking-threads thing resolves itself in a “natural” way without the need to add stuff to the protocol.

I’d love to try this out in practice to see how well it performs. 🤔 It’s all very theoretical at the moment.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de One of the biggest reasons I don’t like the (replyto:…) proposal (location addressing vs. content addressing) is that you just introduce a similar problem down the track, albeit rarer where if a feed changes its location, your thread’s “identifiers” are no longer valid, unless those feed authors maintain strict URL redirects, etc. This potentially has the long-term effect of being rather fragile, as opposed to what we have now where an Edit just really causes a natural fork in the thread, which is how “forking” works in the first place.

I realise this is a bit pret here, and it probably doesn’t matter a whole lot at our size. But I’m trying to think way ahead, to a point where Twtxt as a “thing” can continue to work and function decades from now, even with the extensions we’ve built. We’ve already proven for example that Twts and threads from ~4 years ago still work and are easily looked up haha 😝

I like the (replyto:...) as well. If the feed changes, well, it is the same as changing emails (and deleting the old one). No?

@bender@twtxt.net Yeah I’ll be honest here; I’m not going to be very happy if we go down this “location addressing” route;

• Twt Subjects lose their meaning.
  
• Twt Subjects cannot be verified without looking up the feed.
  
  • Which may or may not exist anymore or may change.
    
• Two persons cannot reply to a Twt independently of each other anymore.
  

and probably some other properties we’d stand to lose that I’m forgetting about…

I just realized the other big property you lose is:

What if someone completely changes the content of the root of the thread?

Does the Subject reference the feed and timestamp only or the intent too?

@movq@www.uninformativ.de That’s kind a problem though right?

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I cases of these kind of “abuse” of social trust. Then I think people should just delete their replies, unfollow the troll and leave them to shouting in the void. This is a inter-social issue, not a technical issue. Anything can be spoofed. We are not building a banking app, we are just having conversation and if trust are broken then communication breaks down. These edge-cases are all very hypothetical and not something I think we need to solve with technology.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I think your scenario doesn’t account for clients and their storage. The scenario described only really affects clients that come along later. Even then they would also be able to re-fetch mossing Twts from peers or even a search engine to fill in the gaps.

@sorenpeter@darch.dk Lins of agree with dealing with this kind of social nonsense which we’ve all done in the past 🤣