One of the most disturbing arguments I've seen against having a quote boost #qt feature:
Unlike a reply, quote tweets allow people to discus *what other people have said* Not reply to that person but make what they have said a topic of discussion.
People examining the discourse of others is troubling? (even if they can opt out, no, this shouldn't happen the argument goes, between even "consenting adults" *that's* how wicked it is)
It's... fascinating.
@futurebird The idea that you should have to talk to someone rather than about their post of public importance is so batshit and contrary to the way the real world works.
Imagine if students were assigned to @ authors over and over rather than writing about their books. š¤¦
@futurebird I think their hidden assumption is that there should not be things of public importance here.
That everything here should be "politics free" interpersonal spaces for hobbies and feel-good stuff and everyone should ignore that the person they're engaging with about their hobbies is a nazi as long as they don't bring it up. š
I get that feeling too. Especially from one user who accused me of "dogpiling" him when I'd replied with a question and literally one other person had also replied. (and I didn't even boost his post, because while it had some pretty clear racist subtex, I wasn't certain if that was what was going on, and I wanted to ask some questions and try to understand)
But, just because the response involved the topic of race it was a "dogpile" to him.
I wasn't even being critical of the guy!
@futurebird @dalias on the dogpiling stuffā¦
It was pointed out yesterday something Iāve noticed before: I canāt see context & other replies a lot of the time, unless I go to the āoriginal link.ā Someone was saying it makes a āreply guy cultureā bc we canāt tell a question has been answered 6 times already. I could definitely see this resulting in accidental/coincidental dog piles that are visible only to the person receiving it, when theyāve said something that deserves response.
@maco "Someone was saying it makes a āreply guy cultureā bc we canāt tell a question has been answered 6 times already."
Dear god, you might be right about this. I do feel like I'm answering the same thing over and over and over here.
And, you know I just try to assume good faith and be patient. But this is worth thinking about further, along with the idea of threading.
Opt in is exactly what everyone is proposing.
Given this is the case I have a hard time understanding the controversy.
embarrassed to ask but - what is QT?
QT stands for "Quote Tweet" which is what it is called on twitter when you re-share a post with a comment appended to the top.
Here it would be called "Quote Boost" since we don't have tweets on here. We have "posts," and they get "boosted" :)
One can already thread. Whether one wants more threading features than yet available is another matter.
And you can quote by doing a share-to-somewhere back to Mastodon! Or by copying and pasting an URL.
I truly do not understand what the problem is with that. It is the simplest thing in the world. But it encourages people to subtoot while singling out an individual for pile-on. Just subtoot! Or think HARD, then share the URL!
Tag the person if they MUST see it.
If posting links, screenshots, tagging the person is "the same" then what's the issue with having a feature that makes it easier... if it already exists?
@futurebird Because it encourages pile-ons and targeting, so that making it too easy is purposely avoided.
You donāt have to take my word for it about the toxicity of the thing. Do an experiment. (I did just this, to prove it to myself).
Find someone who really is making you angry. (In my case, it was a Twitter developer.) Then do a quote-toot and thread virulently attacking what they say. Better yet, do it from behind a block. See what happens.
@futurebird In any case, if someone is so dependent on ease of quoting that they canāt make the small effort to paste an URL, then I certainly think they are also too quick in their reactions to be allowed to do it.
We used to do it that way on Twitter BTW, before 2015. It was no difficulty and still was necessary if the person blocked you.
And posting a screenshot and link with a tag won't have the same impact?
Also here are links to my responses to someone who had basically the same comment as you.
https://sauropods.win/@futurebird/109570276684290306
https://sauropods.win/@futurebird/109570260475891620
Each contains an example that illustrates the difference.
Attached: 1 image @[email protected] Let me give you some examples that help illustrate the difference. I've put more information in the image description. Here is an example of how #qt is useful for talking about events unfolding in real time. #MissedQuoteBoost
@futurebird Perhaps, whatever it is thatās supposed to show, how a link gets displayed is the issue there.
Twitter would display a link much as it would a āQTā. There wasnāt really a difference that I can remember (and I am NOT going back to Twitter to test that).
@futurebird @maco @FeralRobots
Yeah, as I tried to think of some, I realized I may not be that good at it.
Letās see. I try to *not* reply to the first post if thereās an extended convo going on bcā¦confusing. Pay attention to who is being tagged on post so I know what branch Iām in before replying orā¦confusing. Follow as many branches as I can so I try not to repeat something said elsewhere, but that getsā¦confusing
So basically I kinda suck at it?
@KatMA @futurebird @FeralRobots as far as I know, all that's going on _visually_ in both a Twitter QT and in some clients when someone links to a post on here is that they're doing a "rich" display of the linked content, the same way you get the image, headline, and preview for a news article whether on here, the bird site, or Facebook.
If you don't generate OpenGraph tags for a given post, it can't do that, but you can still link to whatever, soā¦you can still drive traffic at a link.
@KatMA @futurebird @maco
Is it that you [we] suck, or that it's hard to follow?
(Before this discussion it hadn't occurred to me that there was a federation-related reason for it being hard: Not every server has the same conversation at any given time!)
@futurebird i heard this point about this accenualting reply guy culture from @k8em0, but probably others have come to the same conclusion! https://infosec.exchange/@k8em0/109559581709013080
Content warning: Mastodon meta
@jdp23 awww she didn't have to make it about ants!
But I totally agree.
myrmepropagandist
Cassandrich
maco
Elyse Eidman-Aadahl
Chris Pirillo
Liberty Bella š½š³ļøāā§ļø
Jorge Stolfi
Mab
Barry Schwartz š«
Katma
FeralRobots
DROP\ TABLE Hacker of Earthsea
SupposeNot
Suecris
Jon