that would make a lot of sense, but would require Ozone to prioritize multi-stakeholder governance: it would need to be responsive to the needs of other users and applications and clients. and unfortunately for that specific project I don't see the path forward to that. it would need a fork.

this is confusing: the "ref" mixes semantics with JSON structure layout. we should probably have "app.bsky.labeler.service" simply re-define the JSON structure instead of referencing "com.atproto.label.defs#selfLabels"

what it has is a field ("labels") which *happens to the same JSON structure* as some other separate data structures which have to do with "self labels". instead of re-defining that JSON structure, the field uses a "ref" over in to that existing schema definition.

in contrast to labeling, which is a protocol-level concept. eg, some systems (IIRC Mastodon) allow creating a single report which references multiple pieces of content. the current mod reporting system doesn't do that. we shouldn't say "atproto doesn't support that", just "ozone doesn't"

(am I doing this right)

is there a Discourse yet that AI glasses are anti-accessibility because they will make people distrust folks with regular spectacles

maybe generic infra like relays, mirrors, generic appviews (eg, microcosm). product design is hard, and i'm not sure regular grant cycles are a good fit. it would be cool if governments gave out "open social vouchers" which citizens could give to local projects they support. or matching funds?

I think the most fund-able bits are baseline moderation (abuse, spam, botnets; the less controversial stuff) and SDK development (eg proto implementations, security audits, performance, compliance tests). maybe resources for auto-classification, translation, accessibility?

wonder if erowid traffic and community participation are down due to AI sumarization

also hope to get 'goat' over on tangled.org at some point, at least dual-publishing, but have a bunch of other tasks to hit first