@ghost_bird yeah there are a lot of traditions that derive their meaning from, like, centuries of practice that are potentially valuable separately from contingent/problematic origins... but w/diamond rings we're talking what, 5, 6 generations max?
@flancian my ideal would probably be editable with a visible audit trail. for platforms where you can boost/RT/reblog, it's really rough to have corrections separate from an original post that can circulate independently
@maya yes, I fully agree. This is why in the Agora I'm trying to have first class support for linking and optionally importing arbitrary resources.
I think [[ctzn]] had this right, with a long form essay optionally associated to each micropost. I was saddened to see it be deprioritized, although I understand the author.
@maya 130 years since the De Beers cartel and about 75 since the big marketing push on diamond engagement rings... though the tradition was there already.
@ghost_bird btw I was just Googling this and do you have a source on the tradition pre-De Beers? that's not me challenging you, it's just because I can't find anybody citing stuff that isn't industry affiliated for, like, specifically diamond engagement rings as a Thing
@maya No, no source - just a note in that article on the “diamonds are forever” campaign that it existed before the marketing push.
@ghost_bird @maya I seem to recall reading way back there DeBeers was able to build the whole engagement ring is diamonds thing on prior traditions that weren’t necessarily diamonds. That was the sell job. Probably strengthened it while they were making it diamond specific so that you weren’t getting engaged without that ring.
A fire is burning in Bird Spirit Land.