I don't mind, I still think it's a huge leap forward, but it's important to set realistic expectations.
(Never used the fediverse, so zero context here).
The only difference in visible replies is in the moderation choices of the server the post is viewed from.
In ATProto, there is no need to do this on-demand because the data is already there in the AppView. When you want to serve a page of replies, you read them from the database and serve them. There is no distributed fetching involved, no need to hit someone else's servers, no need to coalesce them or worry about limiting fetches, etc. This is why it works fine for threads without thousands of replies and hundreds of nesting levels. It can also be paginated on the server.
If you don't have this information on your server, how can you gracefully fetch thousands of replies from different servers and present a cohesive picture during a single request? I'm sure this PR does an attempt at that but I'm not sure this is a direct comparison because Mastodon can't avoid doing this on-demand. If we're comparing, it would be good to list the tradeoffs of Mastodon's implementation (and how it scales to deep threads) more explicitly.
There is also a section related to performance available at the link I posted. Third header, "Likely Concerns", second subheader, "DoS/Amplification".
I mean from the user's perspective: when I open a thread, I expect to instantly see the entire discussion happening across the entire network, with the paginated data coming back in a single roundtrip. Moreover, I expect every actor participating in the said discussion (wherever their data is stored) to see the same discussion as I do, with the same level of being "filled in", and in real time (each reply should immediately appear for each participant). It should be indistinguishable from UX of a centralized service where things happen instantly and are presented deterministically and universally (setting aside that centralized services abandoned these ideals in favor of personalization).
With ATProto, this is clearly achieved (by reading already indexed information from the database). How can you achieve this expectation in an architecture where there's no single source of truth and you have to query different sources for different pieces on demand in a worker? (To clarify, I did read the linked PR. I'm asking you because it seems obviously unachievable to me, so I'm hoping you'll acknowledge this isn't a 1:1 comparison in terms of user experience.)
To give a concrete example: is this really saying that replies will only be refreshed once in fifteen minutes[1]? The user expectation from centralized services is at most a few seconds.
[1]: https://github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/32615/files#diff-6...
For realtime discussions (like this one), I don't think we can call it consistent if it takes multiple minutes for each back-and-forth reply to propagate across instances in the best case (and potentially longer through multiple hops?) because you'll see different things depending on where you're looking and at which point in time.
At least to my observation; I haven't pulled apart the protocol to know why: if you're in a conversation in Mastodon it's real good about keeping you in it. The threading of posts seems to route them properly to the host servers the conversing accounts live on.
I hear your point that slower conversation can be better. That’s a product decision though. Would you intentionally slow down HN so that our comments don’t appear immediately? You could certainly justify it as a product decision but there’s a fine line between saying you should be able to make such decisions in your product, and your technology forcing you to make such decisions due to its inability to provide a distributed-but-global-and-realtime view of the network.
Auto-at-tagging doesn't scale to dozens and dozens of actively-engaged speakers, but neither does human attention, so that's not a problem that needs to be solved.
Seeing the existing convo in real time lets me decide which points to engage with and which have been explored, and to navigate between branches as they evolve in real time (some of which my friends participate in). I do earnestly navigate hundreds of times within an active thread — maybe it’s not your usage pattern but some of us do enjoy a realtime conversation with dozens of people (or at least observing one). There’s also something to the fact that I know others will observe the same consistent conversation state at the time I’m observing it.
You might not consider such an experience important to a product you’re designing, but you’re clearly taking a technological limitation and inventing a product justification to it. If Mastodon didn’t already have this peculiarity, you wouldn’t be discussing it since replies appearing in realtime would just seem normal.
In either case, whether you see it as a problem to be solved or not, it is a meaningful difference in the experiences of Twitter, Bluesky, and Mastodon — with both Twitter and Bluesky delivering it.
It's definitely not as clean as a centralized solution though.