Paul GrahamIt's been interesting comparing Twitter and Mastodon. One of the big differences I notice is that the ratio of mockery to substantive replies is much lower on Mastodon. So if you're going to use both, maybe Mastodon is the place to try out novel ideas first.
Balaji V@paulg I wonder if it is due to the lesser number of folks here or the type of folks here (right now the barrier to entry to mastodon is a little high)
@Balaji For sure the people here on Mastodon are different. But I think Twitter's design also encourages a culture of mockery. Especially quote-tweeting.
Melvin@automatid @paulg 2nd person vs 3rd person. Talking in 3rd person is akin to talking behind someone's back.
Robotbeat@automatid @paulg @Balaji Big follower accounts use quote tweeting to sic their followers on someone, to argue on their behalf, but even worse than that as they’re entering a conversation in the middle, lacking earlier context.
Rant Ninja@Robotbeat @automatid @paulg @Balaji I can certainly see an argument that quote-posts should be limited to people with large followings or a public presence.
Being able to quote politicians or celebrities or others who use public goodwill to make a living seems like a no-brainer.
Using quoting to harass, intimidate or undermine people not in the public sphere is also completely unacceptable.
@rant @automatid @paulg @Balaji I think it’s interesting to separate people into those we’re allowed to harass and those we aren’t. By default, I wouldn’t think it’s workable, but I could be wrong.
@Robotbeat @automatid @paulg @Balaji look at history... Did our forbearers not mock the King and his Lords in our pursuit of freedom?
Do you never mock the rich & powerful?
Even Jesus wasn't so saintly as to avoid pointed criticism of the powerful. Criticism they, no doubt, considered unfair harassment.
So, I wonder where you draw the line?
@rant @automatid @paulg @Balaji Are the media fair game? Tucker Carlson? Pundits and journalists? One of the worst parts of Twitter started by harassing a video game journalist.
Mattias Eriksson 🚵♂️🦀
Nilan@automatid @paulg @Balaji well QTs are directed to followers, not a reply to the OP. So it's basically the difference between laughing "with" someone or laughing "at" someone.
carmenology@automatid @paulg @Balaji A reply is seen only by the OP and people who bother to open the tweet and scroll the replies. But quote tweeting lets people comment on the quoted tweet, which is then posted to their own followers, who, in turn, can do the same, and it's a pile-on.
Caleb Faruki@automatid @paulg @Balaji it lets you speak indirectly at someone rather than to them.
The effect is more psychological than practical. But quote tweets do limit your ability to see a threaded discussion. So it's not really meant for people to evolve. More meant for people to just dunk on each other without any sense of self improvement.
Vincent Stollenwerk@automatid @paulg @Balaji I'd guess a quote Tweet is mostly surfaced to your following, while the reply is mostly surfaced to the following of the Tweet author.
Chinhai Hour@automatid @paulg @Balaji quote tweet you publish on your own feed to your own followers with a snapshot of the original one. Perfect for mockery.
Abdullah Khalid@automatid @paulg @Balaji QTs move the discussion into a different segment of the social networks. If A tweets and B QTs, then the QT is not visible to As followers who don't follow B. But visible to all Bs followers. So B has a safer place to mock.
If B replies to A, then they have to deal with As followers.