Let me put a phrase into your mind: nonconsensual virality. It's why quote-posts on Twitter led to harassment. People's words stolen, taken out of context, used purely to incite a mob of griefers. The answer is to give #Mastodon users control over whether someone else can quote-post them, with a simple "quote or not" setting that can be set before or after the post goes up. We should be allowed to stop people from taking our posts viral without our consent.
@annaleen
Remember, though, that this is also telling some people that they cannot use a particular tool for self-promotion (while others can) because they are too easily victimized, which is patently inequitable.
@wcbdata No. It is allowing users to choose whether a post can go viral or not. They can set a post to be quotable or not quotable.
@annaleen
I respectfully disagree. I think that a world where some people have to self-censor or forgo particular activities or spaces in order to avoid abuse is an abusive world, and I don't think that's the right answer. I have less firsthand experience with that sort of risk management than many - probably most - do, but I hesitate to make that the core of a solution...
@wcbdata It's not self-censoring to set a post to not go viral. It's a way of limiting its reach. As a journalist and author, I feel that I have to censor myself far more when I think a post might go viral, and get into the eyeballs of people who might misunderstand it or weaponize it against me.

@annaleen @wcbdata
"It's not self-censoring to set a post to not go viral."

There isn't a thing you can do about it aside from going offline or behind password protection.

As a community, not having a convenient button helps keeping the community civil. And your personal tools to moderate here are extensive, as well as the moderation tools for admins.

I don't think to go too restrictive is helpful. At some point you introduce self-censureship for fear to upset the community admin.