Oh wow, thanks for this! I have a companion piece drafted, not sure if I will finish it, on moderation experience that accompanied this incident as I tried to get to the bottom of it (I see what you did there 😂). It is a little more instance-to-instance, tho still thru user's eyes.

Anyway agree fully abt how level/scale of where researcher looks affects analysis. (Usually in my research I've focused more on the mediating layer too, rather than end users; this had, uh, peculiar origins)

oh, my, goodness, I didn't realize you were you!

Thanks for the kinds words, and please do write that other article up!

I'm a big fan of your work!

Thank you!! Back at you--grateful for your work!

(Lol, a main reason I am more submerged here is in fact the asstodon antagonist: when he reported me at work, I stopped using even my abbreviated name)

thanks you both for this work. It is exciting to see fresh conceptual frames arise through study and experience in open social.

One thing the "lossy" concept brought up for me was the anti-lossy character of Bluesky and the crypto socials that use Merkle Trees: https://protocol.ai/blog/transcription-bluesky-blog/ That actually shocked me, that the data structure is built around cryptographic preservation, as I think of social chatter as intuitively lossy.

Jay Graber: Building Bluesky and a Decentralized Social Media Protocol

In this technical talk, Jay Graber, CEO of Bluesky, discusses the architecture and design considerations for decentralized social media platforms.

^{Protocol Labs}

@ntnsndr @inquiline a fediverse server that did deliberate loss[1] of old messages would be such a fascinating thing. I think a lot of people *say* they prefer disappearing content, but often the revealed preference is for permanence. (I wonder if @signalapp folks has ever considered deletion-by-default.)

[1] could be just taking private older messages, or perhaps complete deletion; perhaps for all messages, or just those that fall below a certain popularity threshhold; etc.