@woozle Since I mentioned TAGS:
- A defined-vocabulary set of tags can be useful.
- Everybody will hate it.
- There's one I happen to like Because Reasons: the Library of Congress Classification System.
- I know that you hate it. You're not wrong. But you're also not right.
- "You" is not just Woozle, but whomever is reading this.
- "You" includes me.
The useful thing about content tags is that ... they tag content. If they're a common vocabulary, then multiple people can interact on those tags usefully. If they're not, then ... well, absent some intelligence somewhere that associates or dissociates specific tags ... you've got a Tower of Babel and nobody speaks the same language.
(Different languages can be useful. See Tom C. Scott's Seeing Like a State and the notions of "legibility" and "illegibility". Still, there are times when a common basis of informational exchange is helpful.)
All shared vocabularies are political. Someone is oppressed. Someone is advantaged or privileged. Whether you consider this good or bad, it's an inherent characteristic of the system, and ultimately, a tool to be worked with and around.
Profile tags needn't have a shared vocabulary, but are good at organising people. I'd really like to have a few, resembling but not limited to "Friend", "Family", "cow-orker", "Angers Easily", "Wicked Smart", "Dim Bulb", "Troll", "Admin", etc. My list need not be yours. Tagging need not involve following, and shouldn't be overloaded with following-based relations.
"Mute", "Block", and "Follow" are effectively tags with specific permissions / access connotations / overloading.
@celia @eryn @Harena #GroupManagement #MastoGroups #GPlusCircles #GooglePlus #MastoDev #Hashtags