# Exploring Tweetbonds
Continuing speculations on building an informal economy of sorts using standard Twitter functions only.
See the below for the initial draft, though Ive evolved the idea since then
Continuing speculations on building an informal economy of sorts using standard Twitter functions only.
See the below for the initial draft, though Ive evolved the idea since then
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1042578255142944768
If someone deletes a Reply to you, there is no record that such a Reply ever existed(*). One could of course make a screenshot (aka screencap) but screenshots can be faked to say whatever you want.
(*) Actually, twitter may retain the Reply, I dunno.
(*) Actually, twitter may retain the Reply, I dunno.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/997954438630379521
Quote Tweets (QTs) are a different matter. A nested set of QTs, entered in reverse order & punctuated in specific ways, can be made 'secure' in the sense that
1) You can't add to the initial tweet, and
2) You can't add to the final tweet w/o some break in a punctuation protocol.
1) You can't add to the initial tweet, and
2) You can't add to the final tweet w/o some break in a punctuation protocol.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/983735296276795394
Below we see an example of a reversed, nested Quote Tweet in three parts.
There's a certain amount of effort in creating such, which in this example is shown via punctuation, alt text for the image, proper sourcing, & written w/o space for any entered links to other tweets.
There's a certain amount of effort in creating such, which in this example is shown via punctuation, alt text for the image, proper sourcing, & written w/o space for any entered links to other tweets.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1043189104937189376
The reason to space things so that other tweet links may not be entered manually is to prevent falsification by such as linking to a deleted or nonexistent tweet
One can then be assured that proper QTs & not Manual Quote Tweets have been used. This gets more important elsewhere.
One can then be assured that proper QTs & not Manual Quote Tweets have been used. This gets more important elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/983735290891309056
It may appear that I'm intentionally doing extra work that isn't needed for the tweetbond concept, & that's probably correct.
By belt-and-suspendering everything now, I can excise what isn't needed later.
By belt-and-suspendering everything now, I can excise what isn't needed later.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1043195189282709504
The next step is to add a Reply to the lowest level of the reverse nested Quote Tweet back to the top level (as in, last entered) tweet.
I want to do this now so I can include the Reply URL in the upcoming metadata Quote Tweet which will instantiate the Tweetbond.
I want to do this now so I can include the Reply URL in the upcoming metadata Quote Tweet which will instantiate the Tweetbond.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/983865979926142976
Ok, so below we see the Reply (actually a Reply Quote Tweet) which connects the bottom of the nested Quote Tweet to its top tweet.
Now I need to gather the URLs of this RQT & the other 2 URLs so that all may be confirmed in the upcoming metadata Quote Tweet.
Now I need to gather the URLs of this RQT & the other 2 URLs so that all may be confirmed in the upcoming metadata Quote Tweet.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1043197624889823232
As we know, each link manually entered into a tweet takes up 23 characters. If one has an extended reverse Quote Tweet, one can run out of space after maybe 10 tweets.
Using the status number (currently 19 chars) may reduce the required space somewhat, at the cost of extra work.
Using the status number (currently 19 chars) may reduce the required space somewhat, at the cost of extra work.
Ok, so below is my first Tweetbond!
The ID is formed by the status of the topmost tweet (which is the one shown under the metadata Quote Tweet)
Ok, this all seems like a lot of work. Of what use is it?
Good question. Let's figure that out.
The ID is formed by the status of the topmost tweet (which is the one shown under the metadata Quote Tweet)
Ok, this all seems like a lot of work. Of what use is it?
Good question. Let's figure that out.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1043202878696042497
The next step is to get others to invest in this tweetbond. What 'invest' means here may seem a bit vague. You're not gonna make money (at least not directly).
All the cross-checks are used to show (hopefully prove) that a part of this won't be extended to praise Hitler or such.
All the cross-checks are used to show (hopefully prove) that a part of this won't be extended to praise Hitler or such.
To 'invest', the idea is you copy & paste the topmost tweet & make it your own Quote Tweet over the next tweet in the downward chain.
You'll then make an RQT from the bottom-most tweet to your tweet
I'll ask my friend Zherkov to invest to show how this works. Are you there?
You'll then make an RQT from the bottom-most tweet to your tweet
I'll ask my friend Zherkov to invest to show how this works. Are you there?
Ok, excellent. Zherkov will now copy & paste the top level tweet of the Jefferson quote as a Quote Tweet over the 2nd level tweet.
https://twitter.com/MikhailZherkov/status/1043206408316100609
Ok, as we see, Zherkov has followed the protocol correctly. He copied my top-level tweet exactly, didn't try to insert praise of Hitler or Stalin or whatever, or otherwise try to twist Jefferson's words into some evil or diabolical meaning.
https://twitter.com/MikhailZherkov/status/1043207202482335744
I may not agree with Zherkov on most issues. He may not agree with me. We may not even follow each other. But, forevermore, we are bond-brothers sharing the sentiment expressed in the Jefferson quote.
We have decreased #polarization ever so slightly.
We have decreased #polarization ever so slightly.
This relationship can be monitored & if he abandons the bond, as in, he might get suspended or do a mass-delete of tweets, or act in an obnoxious manner which lessens trust in the bond, there are some enforcement mechanisms available.
To do this I need to affirm his investment in the tweetbond, by doing another metadata Quote Tweet(mQT) over his quote tweet.
If his quote tweet is ever deleted, then when I scan my mQTs for this bond, I'll see that there's no quoted tweet.
If his quote tweet is ever deleted, then when I scan my mQTs for this bond, I'll see that there's no quoted tweet.
Ok, so below we see my affirmation of Zherkov's tweetbond.
The extra characters serve to take up all remaining space in my Quote Tweet. Think of it like security printing on a check.
By filling up the space, I show that this is a true Quote Tweet & not a manual QT w/fake link.
The extra characters serve to take up all remaining space in my Quote Tweet. Think of it like security printing on a check.
By filling up the space, I show that this is a true Quote Tweet & not a manual QT w/fake link.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1043211444110671872
(Since I don't know the API abilities, I don't know if such can be faked using the API. The purpose of faking would be to accuse another of breaking the bond by inserting a link to one of their deleted tweets or maybe just making up a status number)
One cannot QT a deleted tweet
One cannot QT a deleted tweet
(Note to self: I should include a #bondissuer tag to my QT of the top-level nested quote tweet to clearly distinguish issuers from bondholders).
Ok, below we see that Zherkov has done an RQT referring to his tweet.
Anybody who navigates to the bottom of the nested quote tweet will see that Zherkov is a bondholder of this tweetbond.
This increases visibility for Zherkov & shows he's a true gentleman. Or something.
Anybody who navigates to the bottom of the nested quote tweet will see that Zherkov is a bondholder of this tweetbond.
This increases visibility for Zherkov & shows he's a true gentleman. Or something.
https://twitter.com/MikhailZherkov/status/1043216195586060294
At the point, I can run some searches to see
* what bonds I've issued
from:mwiik #XD #tweetbond -#bondholder -#exclude
📃 twitter.com/search?f=tweet…
* who are the bondholders
from:mwiik #XD #tweetbond #bondholder -#exclude
📃 twitter.com/search?f=tweet…
* what bonds I've issued
from:mwiik #XD #tweetbond -#bondholder -#exclude
📃 twitter.com/search?f=tweet…
* who are the bondholders
from:mwiik #XD #tweetbond #bondholder -#exclude
📃 twitter.com/search?f=tweet…
(As you see, I should've used #bondissuer in my initial tweetbond metadata Quote Tweet instead of having to exclude #bondholder)
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1043219209835171843
Back to the question of what these are for. They serve as an extra hurdle to group membership (of various forms) somewhat akin to the constraints that older digital communities used to restrict membership to only those truly interested. Troll filtering, of a sort.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1043204721794838533
Twitter celebs might choose to #followback followers who have invested in their tweetbonds.
Collaborative list membership, such as the draft below describes, might require a #tweetbond investment.
Collaborative list membership, such as the draft below describes, might require a #tweetbond investment.
https://twitter.com/mwiik/status/1040638897540227073
For example, an acolyte may tweet 'Please follow me, we have shared interests as you'll see if only you read my thousands of tweets' but way better would be 'Please follow me, we have shared interests as shown by my investment in your tweetbonds'
As the number of bondholders increase, communities may spontaneously arise from the intersection of various bonds.
Finding people who are not like you in all ways but like you in some ways should help with #depolarization.
Finding people who are not like you in all ways but like you in some ways should help with #depolarization.
unroll @threadreaderapp
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
