Okay, this is something that is worth linking to as it will take a longer post.

https://mastodon.social/@HelloAndrew/109351796734280182

I would say that @Gargron should consider implementing quote tweets only with an eye to how the function will change behavior across instances and how adding the feature could introduce new and unique forms of abuse as it interacts with the unique nature of the fediverse.

That is, if @Gargron is serious about introducing the QT feature, the implementation would not be a cold one as was the case with twitter itself back in the day. The fediverse QT feature would benefit from the hindsight of how the feature enabled abuse on the bird site.

This is a point that a lot of anti QT takes miss: it seems to assume that we cannot, and will not, learn from what happened on the bird site with QTs. It assumes a direct replication of the QT function which ignores context.

Context, in this case, matters because the functions of Mastodon are different from the functions of twitter and the differences will matter for how the QT will be used socially.

Again, this is something that anti-QT folks miss because they are focused on the FACT of the history of QT use and not the possibility of its implementation in a new environment with different affordances and resources.

The ignorance of the above among anti-QT people is hilarious to me because my recent threads on this issue have prompted a range of really interesting technical solutions to the problem that could enable community building AND incorporate the unique aspects of mastodon's environment to make something new.

And yet, the majority of the anti-QT people shouted these suggestions down on the basis of the possibility for abuse. Again, I think this misses the mark where QTs on mastodon are concerned.

So, to conclude. I think that implementing QTs needs to be done with an eye towards the specific affordances of mastodon and an eye towards the history of their use. Further, I think there are a lot of creative technical solutions to the QT problem that don't involve mirroring its use on twitter. Finally, I think that people are just refusing to learn from over a decade of lessons about QTs in their arguments against them.

That's my take.

@shengokai Hey where can I find the creative technical solutions to the QT you mentioned, could you share the link if possible?

@impactology @shengokai I miss the same, but maybe the reference is to a space of possibilities yet to be explored?

One small thing might be linking back to the quoting posts under the original, so to make them accessible from and linked parts of the original discussion.

Ben C. O. Grimm (@[email protected])

@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I would love to see this implemented as a three-tier setting available to the original poster: [ ] Allow QT [ ] Disallow QT [ ] Moderate QT The first two are self-explanatory. The last one would be an "after approval by OP" action, preferably served through the notification system. A default setting would be in preferences, with a per-post override in the same place as where language and content warnings are toggled.

Mastodon
@Lustyjustice @impactology Yup! They're scattered all over my replies and my mentions are a shambles. I'll see if I can't find any more.

@impactology @shengokai Lots of ideas thrown around in thread below even if mostly how to use current system for samish purpose:

--
I've been thinking about the Fediverse for a looooong time, since before it was called the Fediverse. I'll admit my thinking hasn't evolved much [...]

But today [...] I've learned *three* new perspectives that have changed/improved the way I think about the Fediverse/Mastodon in subtle but important ways.

So. Much. Gratitude. πŸ™β€οΈ https://mastodon.social/@blaine/109343156150501648

@shengokai This is a great point. The QT design we’re familiar with was one in which a QT was (almost) hidden from view (and thus shielded from feedback by other repliers), relative to direct replies. Would something functionally equivalent to replying and then boosting your own reply (but with a single UI action) be preferable to the old design?
@shengokai πŸ’― And similarly, there's a lot to learn from the CW experience that could lead to better solutions to the very real problems CWs are trying to address while addressing some of the challenges. of course in the end it's the people and the norms that determine the experience, but the tech can shape it.
@shengokai I wonder how only allowing QT on the instance you are on would work. Or... an allowlist of instances your instance lets QT.

@shengokai I'm sure someone else has already suggested this, but just in case: maybe one of the differences could be that private QRTs are disabled? It could be required that the person being QRTed is able to see the QRT, like followers-only posts that tag non-followers. Or maybe people could opt-in to allowing private QRTs on their posts?

I have hope that QRTs could be implemented on this platform with their benefits outweighing their drawbacks! I've found your threads informative - thank you!