I'm sitting on a full multi-user version of Tertulia. It's off in a branch I've been riffing on with Claude Code.
Every user gets their own journal — a space to think, which is how I use Tertulia myself. Other people can follow you, and you decide how to grant access to the people in your network.
That design comes out of thinking seriously about context collapse after living through it on Facebook. For me, most of that came around the Israel/Palestine conflict: experiences that dragged my entire network into debates over the definition of antisemitism. Conversations a lot of people didn't feel safe having, because they saw only downside — real social and professional risk — and no upside beyond signaling that you're against crimes against humanity.
I've come around to the view that Facebook's privacy controls and friend lists are actually well designed. The problem is what they're asked to do: contain conflicts the engagement systems are built to amplify, on a network you've assembled over years without ever thinking about trust boundaries or algorithmic amplification — and with no good way to move people between trust groups once a conflict has already started. I have 2,400+ "friends" accumulated over fifteen years. How was I ever going to sort them?
Because here's what it looks like when a conflict arrives before you have: every Jewish person in your network — and the whole world — sees your posts criticizing Israel. The people who disagree arrive angry, your friends arrive to defend you, and the feed algorithm decides this is exactly the content it wants more of, because it's "engaging" and "increases time on platform." And then what do you do?
I stopped posting. I decided it wasn't worth feeding the Zuckerbeast if it cost me my sanity, especially when I mostly use social media as a space to get thoughts and ideas out of my head.
I don't know if I'll ever release this thing. But designing my own platform has turned out to be the best way I've found to actually think through any of it.