# How TweetBonds might work
A SPLIT is a reverse-authored multi-tweet nested quote tweet.
A single author sets up a famous quote or passage. The last line of the passage (or a name or perhaps reference) is then Replied to with a link to the top tweet.
A SPLIT is a reverse-authored multi-tweet nested quote tweet.
A single author sets up a famous quote or passage. The last line of the passage (or a name or perhaps reference) is then Replied to with a link to the top tweet.
Such a Reply is called a Buttress. Generally, we'll only need the B type buttress as shown below.
Next, another author comes along & determines that he or she has sufficient agreement with the SPLIT statement to add their tweetbond via Quote Tweeting a tweet w/in the SPLIT (which could be any tweet other than the first tweet entered)
They Reply to the OT w/a link to their QT
They Reply to the OT w/a link to their QT
A properly maintained tweetbond then has the original author affirm the newcomer's tweetbond by adding it as a Reply to their OT w/a link to the newcomer's QT. Got that?
It might work better if the original author's QT was to the newcomer's Reply.
Such a tweetbond basically serves as a contract that one will tweet with a minimal level of decency, that is, one will not get suspended, do mass tweet deletion, etc.
The tweetbond serves as a record.
Such a tweetbond basically serves as a contract that one will tweet with a minimal level of decency, that is, one will not get suspended, do mass tweet deletion, etc.
The tweetbond serves as a record.
Missing tweets in the tweetbond serve as evidence that the missing tweet author has egressed against the prior authors of the tweetbond
One will see a missing Quoted Tweet but the link will be visible in Twitter Web Client if nothing else
The tweets might disappear. Links won't
One will see a missing Quoted Tweet but the link will be visible in Twitter Web Client if nothing else
The tweets might disappear. Links won't
It's possible that the original author could seek to forge a link to any deleted tweet of another user & then accuse the other user of breaking the tweetbond.
One way around this would be for the original author's affirmation tweet to be the full 280 characters.
One way around this would be for the original author's affirmation tweet to be the full 280 characters.
If for example, this tweet were 280 characters long (or at least long enough not to leave 23 characters for a link), then one would have assurance that an affirmation link hadn't been forged, since there's no way of entering one.
I suppose the API may have a workaround. Hmm.
I suppose the API may have a workaround. Hmm.
What it all amounts to is a cheap association contract which, though not at all enforceable, establishes a minimal model of good behavior plus an agreement to acknowledge the tweeple involved agree with the sentiment expressed in the SPLIT.
At this point I gather that I might have 1-3 followers who even have a glimmer of what I'm talking about so will end this speculation here.
