When we say "I" it is never (intentionally) masking as singlet, but instead speaking individually, personally. Speaking for myself, rather than ourselves. One of the biggest hurdles for us on social media at this stage of our life is that we will never again hide our plurality because it is so devastating to our happiness. Expressing plurality, for us, is a carefully balanced combination of expressing ourselves as individuals (that are part of a bigger thing) and also expressing ourselves as a plural group (made of an individuals). For us, there can't be peace unless we feel singularly seen while keeping respect and acknowledgement that we aren't singlet. This better be more coherent than it feels like it is.
Anyway, masking as singlet makes us deeply unhappy, but by any one of us making a post and using "I" because that person is speaking about xirself, because I am speaking about myself... it ends up being, externally observable, sort of the same thing, which we mostly find funny and, I suppose, gives us the benefits of what masking would do, if we were doing it, but we're truly not. Even if we aren't open about who each of us is by name or by any other indication or identifier (except when we tag or sign-off), that person gets to know that xe wrote that.
The point I actually wanted to get to is that we are not, perhaps, like the language adopted by some systems who speak of "I/me/my" by whoever is the current fronter but speaking for the entire collective. In that, it's disregarding the state of plurality and adjusting prior experiences as yours when they weren't. "I went to the grocery store yesterday and--" No you didn't. Your headmate did. Or "we went to the grocery store." Sure, other systems can do and say whatever they want. I'm not arguing that and I probably never will. But it's a language choice that speaks to a greater mindset that we think is really fucking annoying and not something we vibe with at all. This is, of course, meaning like multiple systems who are aware of their plurality, so there's no possible confusion whatsoever for the identity of the singular headmate who did xyz thing, and even if there's memory issues, you'd still know whether you did something or not, or if it was someone else.
It's a little bit scary posting this because
1). I am now certain I am not making sense and what I am saying will get confused.
2). It is a strong opinion that may sound assholeish because of how it might get confused. Or if it's understood correctly but someone disagrees with us fundamentally. Which is... whatever.
Maybe I'll edit this later if I'm still fronting (Unlikely) and think of a more concise and more coherent way to say what I want.