> Else this is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen: It's easy to accidentially share numbers. That's a critical implementation detail, but I think it can be

> Else this is a privacy nightmare waiting to happen: It's easy to accidentially share numbers. That's a critical implementation detail, but I think it can be done. All we need to do is make contact-sharing an explicit feature. > But that's essentially re-inventing social networks with a narrow focus. Yes it is. That's the utility of decentralized networks: by removing the hierarchy from the network, we have removed the explicitly drawn context. Instead, the context is implicit and flexible. There are pros and cons to this feature. Instead of segmenting "twitterverse", "facebookverse", etc.; we simply have "the universe". The same boundaries can be replicated, but the lines are drawn by the users instead of by the platform, all while preserving compatibility across those lines. My answer to this change is to replace moderation with curation. I get into this distinction more in my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238201 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42238201 As far as privacy in curated networks goes, I think we could find some interesting strategies to accomplish it. One could be anonymous pseudonyms: publish the attestations you don't want traced back to you as an explicitly not-you user. Another could be attestation laundering: provide a publicly available user (that anyone can use) that publishes a collection of attestations as if it was the original publisher, and let collaborators vote on that user's overall validity via attestation. Essentially, we must contend with the inverted hierarchy that decentralized networks are made of. It's definitely a change, but I think can provide a lot more utility than centralized networks provide today.