You quote: "Friendly reminder to use literally anything other than email if you need to have a conversation between multiple people that you have any hope in following."

I wonder what available tool works better for this purpose?

Email is bad, given the demise of old-style netiquette, and the rise of email clients that helpfully promote the newer, less useful standards.

But I can't think what's better. Not bluesky, where this quote came from; I can't even get it to give me a list of everyone I'm following. It's also not designed for conversation, but for short format blast-o-grams without guaranteed delivery. (Think of it as ICMP with a spiffy UI.) That is, of course, in emulation of its parent, previously known as Twitter - it wants to be a better Twitter, not a better communications platform.

Not any of the myriad chat boards, essentially IRC with spiffy graphics and more centralization. They have fewer net.drops, and no net.splits - and lots more emojis/emoticons - but whether your choice is Slack, Skype, Discord, or any of the more recent variants on this theme, their ability to follow individual conversations is limited, even with optimal use of the tools (hint: use the 'thread' feature many of them have. )

Facebook? Doesn't that just show you a subset of things those you follow may have posted, without even a chance for you to choose what you get? Can you even see responses, and responses to responses?

People seem determined to treat store-and-forward systems as if they were face-to-face conversations, that can't (and shouldn't) be examined as history. Even tools designed for other purposes get used like face-to-face chat, making them unhelpful for other purposes. Unless, of course, you avoid people who are stuck in their face-to-face preference.

As I understand it, pseudo face-to-face is what people want. Real people that is, not mutants like myself or the OP. Us mutants should stop it with our inconvenient demands and criticism.