Ex dente leonem

https://fedia.social/@lovetann

I should be writing.

Pronouns: they/them
Politics: 💯🤖🥂🌈🚀🏴⚒️
Aesthetic: Solarpunk in the streets, lunarpunk in the sheets

Public Key

npub14wkw7nvrq0r2ca59tntxwllesayzjfk57755qwqdfx4lhepmryvsuqvvup

NIP-05 Address

lovetann_at_fedia.social@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs2ht80fkps834vw6z4e4n80lucwjpfym20022q8qx5n2lmusa3jxgprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0d4hhxarj9ecxjmntdfhp3e

Publishing to

relay.momostr.pink

Author Public Key

npub14wkw7nvrq0r2ca59tntxwllesayzjfk57755qwqdfx4lhepmryvsuqvvup

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-09-16 20:35:04 UTC

- reply

Imo this line in your essay is the most compelling reason I've come across for threaded posts on social media:
> [High character limits] are *monolithic* in a way that threads aren’t. Threading an essay requires the author to compose it in stanzas, each of which is a standalone, complete thought — and that means that readers can engage with each though separately, by replying to just that stanza.
This applies especially to idea-rich content (like, say, Cory Doctorow essays). Threading allows readers to respond either *holistically* to your thesis, or *specifically* to one of the thoughts that come together to make that thesis.
This meta-discussion is particularly relevant here in context of your post today about protocols vs platforms, in that ActivityPub allows you to format your posts in the form you feel best fits your content, while allowing readers to engage with that content in the form that best suits them by using the tools available to them with ActivityPub.
In my case (on an IceShrimp instance) I use the filter `/Long thread\/[0-9]+$/`, but your point about stanzas actually has me considering removing that filter. Which of course supports your greater point that the right protocols allow us that choice.