not sure exactly where this threads in w/ the discussion w/…

like in theory you could think of being like, it's ok, we can maintain the privacy & sense of space by just like, making a responsible person choose, trusting that people will only add people responsibly, getting an agreement from everyone to open up all the old private messages, not showing new people old messages so there doesn't have to be renegotiation of the privacy of those, and so forth--- these solutions are so bad that the problem should be abolished

a private space should be main to contain a certain group of people, & then it should be fixed right then who'll ever be in the group, & expanding or contracting the group should mean simply making a new group w/ the new boundary

if you think about it from a different angle the question is, should we add ANOTHER way of agreeing about the borders of a space, other than the basic one of establishing them at the beginning,,,, the costs of figuring out about a renegotiated border have to be less than the efficiency of not needing to make new space

trying to cut corners by being "efficient" about consent-finding is like one of the basic problems of the world

hmm... this is interesting. yea right now anyone in a private thread can expand the participants in that thread and to all descendent threads by mentioning new people... this can cause issues for sure... gotta do some thinking

its different in a stream tho... stream membership needs to be able to be expanded... but then whats the difference... consistent expectations maybe? a thread is more intimate than a stream?

there are advantages to being able to bring in new people tho... hmm

im thinking of like a slack or discord channel... their membership changes all the time

maybe there needs to be a concept of locking a thread down...