Several folks chimed in with something that's obvious in retrospect but I'll sheepishly admit had never occurred to me (or, if it had, I'd long since forgotten): many surnames work *explicitly* this way. The "von"/"van" suffix in Germanic communities, "de" in French, and "da" in Italian, to name but a few.

Many other naming traditions work effectively this way, too. There are far too many to list here, but Wikipedia has a reasonably complete compendium: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_…

I've been thinking a lot about naming lately, and allowed myself to go down the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal… rabbit hole. This sentence in particular jumped out at me as relevant to the current moment:

"It is nearly universal for people to have names; the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child declares that a child has the right to a name from birth."

set of names by which an individual is known

^{Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)}

I've also been working on this for many years now, but even though I am a programmer at times, we are more looking at this from a human rights/democracy perspective.

Just as federation is not the final form of decentralisation, self-sovereignty isn't the final form of identity ownership.

Ultimately full identity ownership must become a fundamental human right, when you go really deep down the rabbit hole. That's what I'm working on. Working title: TCP/ID :)

TIL🧵1/3: @shengokai's posts (twitter.com/shengokai/status/1…) are a masterpiece. I'm not sure there's one lesson; just YES.

I personally hope that his critiques can be addressed by oppressed communities, for oppressed communities within the wider framework of the fediverse.

THAT SAID, these sorts of writings are exactly what we need, and I will be thinking a lot about what he's written, and I hope that Fediverse implementors and participants are, too, as we collectively construct these spaces.

TIL🧵2/3: Many have said it, I'm going to say it, too: I miss Quote Tweets. I appreciate the thoughtful justification for not implementing them, but also disagree. My ideal would be

a quote tweet that points up 😍☝️
rather than Twitter's pointing down 🤬👇

because I think sometimes it's really important to contextualize or emphasize why you're boosting someone's post.

I think Quotations are coming, and I hope and believe that ultimately, the call isn't @Gargron's alone to make. @scottjenson has been advocating for designers & UX folk to take part, and I hope that structures emerge to make that not just possible, but pervasive.

In the meantime, @amirouche pointed me at this lovely pattern:
social.hyper.dev/@amirouche/10…

amirouche 🌱 (@amirouche@social.hyper.dev)

@blaine@mastodon.social @shengokai@zirk.us Quoted toot fork the conversation, and promote individuals instead of... conversation. Boosting a reply does the same, and leads to the interesting context.

^{social.hyper.dev}

Basically, instead of QTing something, on Mastodon it's possible to reply to a post and then boost your reply.

That way, the visibility is the same as a Quote would have been, but with the interesting property that the OP doesn't get silenced/steamrolled, but the original post is still easily visible. More conversational, less adversarial.