I'm winding down the effort on conversation containers now, so if you've still got any issues that haven't been addressed, please let me know. (The issue with empty messages in Hubzilla has been addressed and is working its way through the system).
Since there is still some confusion, I'll try to summarise this feature one more time.
There are two models of communication in the fediverse; which can be described very roughly as Twitter-like (microblogs) and Facebook-like (conversations). Most fediverse software only supports the microblog model, as this is all that Mastodon provides. But a significant chunk of the fediverse also supports the conversation model - and has for many years.
In the microblog model, Francis posts a message and it goes to all his followers. Taylor responds and the response goes to all her followers. Taylor's response is rarely seen by the rest of Francis's followers. They are different conversations with completely different audiences.
In the conversation model, Francis posts a message to all his followers. Taylor responds (only) to Francis, and Francis relays the comments to all his followers.
In this way, Francis has a contained conversation. There is one audience and one set of messages that are part of the conversation. Francis owns this conversation and decides who is a part of it. Taylor's followers aren't involved in any way.
This type of construct is a requirement for providing private groups and circles/aspects in the fediverse - as these features are by definition "contained conversations". It mostly provides a range of interactions that can't really be provided by the microblog model.
Ultimately, it is my intention is to fully support both in the streams repository -- and let you choose the best mechanism for your particular communications. The microblog model has wider reach. The conversation model is much better suited for communication within pre-defined or fixed audiences.
#
streams
