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. ðŸ˜
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!
@dalias 👀
I am reading respectfully.
myrmepropagandist
Cassandrich