Occasionally someone will learn that the CW/CN field is called 'subject' in the protocol, and respond with "so people are just *misusing* the subject field!"
And I find it extremely telling when that is the first response, rather than "wait, why do people need to use the subject field for this, why isn't there a CW feature in the protocol?"
@joepie91 I find it too limiting - I could use a "boost with CW" or even a proper QT feature just so I can add a CW.
E.g. there are fedi people I follow who love talking US Politics (no uspol CW), but many in my FOSS circles don't want to be inundated with uspol stuff. I get where both are coming from, and atm my only options are either run two accounts (I struggle to spare the attention to maintain a presence with one) or try to awkwardly split the difference wrt minimizing doomboosts