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. 🤦
@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. 😠
@dalias @futurebird there is a goofy conflation of small and large posts and accounts. It can be annoying for a small time poster to end up in the public eye. But if you have news agencies, politicians, and billionaires on your network, spewing their stuff, we absolutely should be able to treat their statements as objects to be examined, rather than responding asking with 5000 other people, 99% of whom will be ignored.
And honestly I wouldn't want big accounts to be able to turn off #QT
This line of thinking is fascinating to me in a good way.
In any social network large accounts have real power. I don't care if we have #qt or not, when there is an account with a million followers they can create abuse in ways that others can't.
I always thought that big accounts should have been held to a higher standard-- though twitter always did the opposite.
A big account attacking a small one is objectively different from me calling IDK the mayor of NYC an idiot.
@futurebird yes that's just it... Maybe this whole discussion is going in circles because we're discussing the wrong thing. The issue isn't #qt, but how to deal with scale.
In US libel law, we get to dunk on "public figures" more freely. There is a whole jurisprudence around ideas like "limited public figure."
Similarly, just as you suggest, communities can and should place stricter rules on the behavior of bigger voices.
The future your going into has nothing to do with speaking cause most won't they won't have Adams apples
@futurebird @stevenbodzin This is the core challenge. Balancing power and reducing the natural human competition for power (follows). Encouraging #cooperation over #competition. Allowing #advertisement endangers that power balance.
A possibly overly technical solution:
You can only QT those who have opted in to the system OR those with at least 10x the followers that you have.
(not really a serious proposal, but I'm intrigued by the idea of empowering smaller users, a kind of "blue shell" for social media.)
Interesting idea! That would certainly limit the ability to call down trouble on someone's head.
Now my brain is noodling on the details.
I think the limit would maybe have to also apply to _boosting_ quoteposts, otherwise big accounts still have disproportionate power.
& where do "throwaway" accounts fit in this hypothetical ecosystem - would it want a min number of followers before the quoting permission kicks in? Or do they not matter?
myrmepropagandist
Cassandrich
S Bodzin, Real American 🇺🇸
Rabbi Nathan Farb
Loukas (They/Them) 🏳️⚧️
Matthew
Hobson Lane
Uncle 6 🌁
FoolishOwl
Mari Jax (∞+1 of 47) 🏳️⚧️
Jennifer Moore 😷