tyler ↑? on Warpcast

Content pfp

0 reply

20 recasts

20 reactions

Steve pfp

Been mulling over this a bit and I do think channels are closest to hashtags but sadly get the short end of two sticks. Hashtags: 100.0% free and permissionless to use (can be made in realtime, ahead of time as a larger campaign, etc.) to organize ephemeral public group chats Communities (in some vein, subreddits): focused around a specific topic, [can] have hierarchy, often have static information and resources that not only bring people in via search engines but keep them around with self-managed wikis. Channels have too much friction to be created out of thin air yet and (currently) lack the structure and content to be meaningful for communities to build around. It'd be neat if clients displayed "trending" channels by recent activity relative to the average: i.e. /politics getting its uptick during big [US?] events, /game5 felt awesome in its time. Also, I really enjoy the novel use of channels for quote casting to recontexualize casts, i.e. into /bad-takes, /dont-do-this, /someone-build

10 replies

4 recasts

604 reactions

tyler ↑? pfp

Also, you could put multiple hashtags in one post. Recasting gets at this, but it can fragment conversation. That said, I think I prefer channels in terms of unifying a set of conversations and a community. Hashtags only very rarely did that and the fragmentation was still there. They weren’t strictly native because you needed a client to track them well. (Sidenote: I was dictating the above and my iPhone translated what I was saying into #OnlyVeryRarelyDidThat which says something about the prevalence of hashtags!)

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction

Steve pfp

Quote casting* but yes, the fragmentation is brutal. Would be nice if it properly recasted into a new channel and maintain the same conversation and engagement, the challenge then would just be setting good limits to discourage abuse. And yep, say what you want about them but they’re legible! #SentFromMyiPhone

1 reply

0 recast

1 reaction