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.
@benhamill You're welcome. It might be the philosopher in me but I think that people's arguments against QTs tend to miss what the combination of open source and the decade of history of using QTs on twitter can teach us.
As much as people like to tout the differences between mastodon and twitter as a function of the open source federated model, they're really not interested in exploring the robust possibilities that come with it.
@shengokai One thing I have to seen (which may be more due to lack of looking/ability to look than lack of it existing) is a breakdown on what are the important factors. Like, what’s the difference between an ideal Mastodon-native quote feature and “boost the quoted post, reply to it removing all mentions and use ‘LB’”? Ease of use? Some key (software) behavior difference? Something about post visibility? Something about the original author being pulled in or not? Something about breaking the thread? I am wholly unequipped to answer these questions.
I’m just thinking about the fact that, historically, the features people have liked most about Mastodon (e.g. content warnings) have been bolted on by weird user behavior before they were supported by the software (like hashtags on Twitter originally). I wonder if there is some kind of path similar to “delete and redraft” instead of “edit” that would help define what folks actually want and need.
Dr. Johnathan Flowers
Local Dad, Ben Hamill