Kaleidoskop (moved)Type "you should follow me because" and let autocomplete finish the sentence.
You should follow me because you have a good time to talk about it haha
Well, not wrong in theory. XD
Chee Aun 🤔@[email protected] @tess 🤔 I don't have strong opinions on this, but some notes here:
- Feels similar to #QuoteReply discussion previously (Elk almost implemented it?)
- UI has be the same when composing too; reply may differ based on position of quoted post. Also has to be across every client, couldn't be a 1-client thing as it may be confusing to users
- @phanpy handles *multiple* and *nested* (2 levels max) "quoted post" (links) so it's more complicated 🙈 https://mastodon.social/@cheeaun/110264907143471267
♾️ Yuki (스노 雪亮) 🐬 🧮🗝️And… this is a #QuotePost, or #QuoteReply.
I think, one of the reason used against this feature from way back in 2016 (when Mastodon first came out), was that it disconnects the conversation. Once it's disconnected, you do not know what's happening (borders on moderation already).
I remember saying then and now that it doesn't have to be. A QuotePost/QuoteReply can still be shown within the same thread.
Since it was all about choice and permissions, I suggested the following:
Original Poster
* toggle: disallow quoteposts/quotereplies (default is false)
* if above is false, then, toggle: allow quoteposts attached to your thread (default is true)
QuotePost/QuoteReply
* if “disallow quoteposts” == false && “allow quoteposts attached” == true, then offer
* toggle: disconnect from the original thread (default is false)
I would like to think that most would keep it ‘false’. And if “toggle disallow quotepost” is true, then the only way is to manually copy the link into a new post (not using the quotepost feature itself).
It satisfies the OP's desire to make a decision about quoteposts/quotereplies; while at the same time, it also satisfies the freedom of the other users.
It isn't perfect, and it's probably not a good idea to implement this level of control/permissions. But, I think it addresses the concerns of both parties in the debate.
I, for one, would prefer quoteposts/quotereplies to be attached to the original thread. But, at the same time, I want to give the users an option to ‘disconnect’ from the original thread.
Anyway…
When you are quoteposting/quotereplying to a thread in #Calckey, the quotepost/quotereply still shows in the original thread, like this one, when viewed from Calckey. It doesn't when viewed from other #fediverse / #MycelialNetwork software.
RE: https://calckey.social/notes/9dy9elgd55
I think, one of the reason used against this feature from way back in 2016 (when Mastodon first came out), was that it disconnects the conversation. Once it's disconnected, you do not know what's happening (borders on moderation already).
I remember saying then and now that it doesn't have to be. A QuotePost/QuoteReply can still be shown within the same thread.
Since it was all about choice and permissions, I suggested the following:
Original Poster
* toggle: disallow quoteposts/quotereplies (default is false)
* if above is false, then, toggle: allow quoteposts attached to your thread (default is true)
QuotePost/QuoteReply
* if “disallow quoteposts” == false && “allow quoteposts attached” == true, then offer
* toggle: disconnect from the original thread (default is false)
I would like to think that most would keep it ‘false’. And if “toggle disallow quotepost” is true, then the only way is to manually copy the link into a new post (not using the quotepost feature itself).
It satisfies the OP's desire to make a decision about quoteposts/quotereplies; while at the same time, it also satisfies the freedom of the other users.
It isn't perfect, and it's probably not a good idea to implement this level of control/permissions. But, I think it addresses the concerns of both parties in the debate.
I, for one, would prefer quoteposts/quotereplies to be attached to the original thread. But, at the same time, I want to give the users an option to ‘disconnect’ from the original thread.
Anyway…
When you are quoteposting/quotereplying to a thread in #Calckey, the quotepost/quotereply still shows in the original thread, like this one, when viewed from Calckey. It doesn't when viewed from other #fediverse / #MycelialNetwork software.
RE: https://calckey.social/notes/9dy9elgd55
Panos Damelos (@panos)
When I first came to the #Fediverse, I stumbled upon the idea that #QuotePosts (or #QuoteTweets or #QuoteToots or #Quotes) are inherently toxic as a feature. At first I thought it might hold some truth; the more I come to think of it, the more I find the idea absurd. Yes, that's a strong word, but let me explain. You see, many posts (if not the majority) on <i>any</i> social platform are links with a comment. A youtube link. A link to an article. A link to a blog post. Nobody considers this function "toxic" by design. And this is essentially what a #QuotePost is, as well. A public post in a microblogging platform is... a public microblog post. The idea that it's perfectly fine to post links with blog posts outside the fediverse with a comment, but not links from microblog posts inside the fediverse with a comment, simply makes no sense. This becomes more obvious if you consider <i>the same exact feature</i> on facebook. You can "share" a facebook post, either with a comment or without one. It becomes a new post with its own comments. Nobody (afaik) has claimed that Share on Facebook is a "toxic" feature. You don't see anyone complaining about it, or asking Facebook to remove this functionality. The complaints about quotes is a Fediverse peculiarity. Why? This is a Twitter problem. If Twitter is a toxic community, which permits -or actually promotes- toxic behaviour, and users utilize #QuoteTweets for that, it's not an inherent problem of the feature. We can post links to public content with comments all day and not be abusive. That's what quotes are. So the problem is not #quotes. The problem might be the idea that the #Fediverse should replace #Twitter. If you see the Fediverse as the new Twitter, it's an easy mistake to blame its features for its negative aspects. But abusive and toxic behaviour is a matter of moderating, not of features. You can be as abusive as you want without having quotes. Having the ability to quote a post is not what will transform you and make you act like an asshole. The Fediverse is not, and should not be, a Twitter replacement. We can be better than a for-profit public arena. And you can quote me on that. :blobbonedealwithit:
Keith Wilson@timbray ⬆️ Kind of suggests that we don’t need a quote-boost function, but a #QuoteReply.
@paul It’s striking that you can currently quote tweets on Mastodon more effectively than you can quote toots! That said, I think we should be sensitive to people’s concerns around this and open to new and better approaches instead of copying Twitter.
For that reason I’d be in favour of a boost-and-reply (aka #QuoteReply) function in place of QTs as described here: https://fediphilosophy.org/@keithwilson/109456249890156614
Keith Wilson (@[email protected])
The negative aspects of #QuoteTweets could be fixed by making them work more like replies. A #QuoteReply, if you will. Instead of appearing as a new toot unconnected with the original, the original toot would be boosted with a comment added that is shown both to followers and, crucially, the original poster. Subsequent replies would then go to both in the usual way so that the conversation is not forked. (The same should also happen with regular boosts IMO.) #Mastodon #UX #QuoteToot #noxp
@uliwitness @paul @film_girl Here’s a proposal for a #QuoteReply (or Boost-and-Reply) function: https://fediphilosophy.org/@keithwilson/109456249890156614.
This avoids some of the worst aspects of QTs while remaining compatible with the existing Mastodon API since you can already boost a reply along with the original toot. All that’s needed from clients is to display both together in the timeline (which @elk already does) and a way to boost-and-reply to a toot as a single action; e.g. via a long press on the ‘boost’ button. Bingo!
Keith Wilson (@[email protected])
The negative aspects of #QuoteTweets could be fixed by making them work more like replies. A #QuoteReply, if you will. Instead of appearing as a new toot unconnected with the original, the original toot would be boosted with a comment added that is shown both to followers and, crucially, the original poster. Subsequent replies would then go to both in the usual way so that the conversation is not forked. (The same should also happen with regular boosts IMO.) #Mastodon #UX #QuoteToot #noxp
@Gargron What about making them a #QuoteReply (roughly equivalent to a repost with additional reply text)? This avoids the problem of splitting the conversation, instead encouraging interaction with the original poster. See here for proposal and discussion: https://fediphilosophy.org/@keithwilson/109456249890156614
Keith Wilson (@[email protected])
The negative aspects of #QuoteTweets could be fixed by making them work more like replies. A #QuoteReply, if you will. Instead of appearing as a new toot unconnected with the original, the original toot would be boosted with a comment added that is shown both to followers and, crucially, the original poster. Subsequent replies would then go to both in the usual way so that the conversation is not forked. (The same should also happen with regular boosts IMO.) #Mastodon #UX #QuoteToot #noxp
patak@keithwilson @thilo @elk it is normal that a poster writes a very thoughtful reply and boosts it. Or others find it interesting and boost it, even if they are deep in a thread. As you said, quote replies should avoid the abuse-related issues of regular quote posting so it feels arbitrary to limit it only to top posts.
About the place for the action, maybe it could be another action under the three dots in a post? We could also have keyboard shortcuts or combos like alt+click on the boost button to #QuoteReply. I don't like that much the UI of Twitter in which you get asked if you want to Quote or Boost every time you click the button. Even if Quote Replies work well, I think we should still incentivize boosting over them, no?
About the place for the action, maybe it could be another action under the three dots in a post? We could also have keyboard shortcuts or combos like alt+click on the boost button to #QuoteReply. I don't like that much the UI of Twitter in which you get asked if you want to Quote or Boost every time you click the button. Even if Quote Replies work well, I think we should still incentivize boosting over them, no?
@patak @thilo @elk I take your point about hostility to QTs, but though the intention is similar I think the #QuoteReply concept mitigates most of the negative aspects of QTs, so I’m inclined to think the worry is misplaced. Perhaps it could be controlled via a preferences option for those who really don’t want to use it.
@patak @thilo @elk Logically, I see #QuoteReply as an extension of the boost function, i.e. a boost-with-reply. So it makes sense to add it to boost rather than reply. I also think it’s good to provide an option to boost unlisted or to followers only, which could share the same option. In this case you could just set the visibility and post without adding any reply text.