Eugen RochkoI don't feel as strongly about quote posts as I did in 2018. Personally, I am not a fan, but there is clearly a lot of demand for it. We're considering it.
Toot Terrorist@Gargron I hope you don't add it, but if you do, at least give us the option to block quoted posts from people, please.
Jurjen Heeck 🍋@twit_terrorist @Gargron That, and the option to block my posts (individually) from being quoted.
Allan Warsing@jurjen_heeck @twit_terrorist @Gargron
One can simply link to a post, but the nicely formatted graph data doesn't display. I don't see the difference in linking to URL or quote posting. I think if you post something to a public website, others should be able to interact with that post. Turning off comments, muting, blocking are legit methods to control your personal experience, but pre-editorializing who can link to a public post I think goes too far.
https://elk.zone/mastodon.nl/@jurjen_heeck/109623908803719520
Wiredfire 
@awarsing @jurjen_heeck @twit_terrorist @Gargron the difference is the immediate visibility of the content combined with, often as seen on Twitter, a call to pile-on or otherwise disparage the original post / author.
We see this happening a LOT on Twitter. We really don’t need to add routes for bullying and abuse here.
Billie@jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron this is exactly the reason why not to do it.
Has been pointed out many times as the big positive feature compared to #birdside that this is not possible here.
Quoting and boosting basically stops the discussion and changes it to a talk about the post&author, excluding her/him from any further conversation and giving the trolls a tool for harassment and insulting.
Don't.
@Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @Gargron
I don't know about other countries, but in mine it is used mostly to move the private conversation to public discussions, trying to draft your followers to insult your opponent (The classic QRT commenting 'How can he think THAT????'), misinterpretating a headline to push your point of view and more bullshit like that.
It is not something I'm looking forward to it, to be honest...
Just Tom... 🐁@Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron - I'm intrigued. I had only ever used quote posting to say to others "Hey, look at this fascinating thing" , and it was only after arriving on Mastodon that I understood that it can be used to harass. Mastodon is different and I'll happily trade quoting for the absence of the harassment. It's a minor inconvenience in the scheme of things...
StreetDogg@Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron
I miss QTs a lot because often I explicitly *don't* want to bother the original poster with a (potentionally annoying) reply. I want to communicate my thoughts to my followers, who deliberately follow me to receive that kind of content and can undo that at any moment.
Being encouraged to become a reply guy isn't always making things better...
Lapineige@StreetDogg so you need to share some reaction, and optionally the content you're reacting to, to your followers, while not notifying the author. Then you can (optionally boost and) reply without mentioning this person.
To what extend does that don't fulfill the need ?
@Lapineige @Billie @wiredfire It's possible to do things that vaguely resemble QTs in multiple ways. They are just not ideal and needlessly inconvenient.
It's not going to make or break the site, but generally I think a service should not try to annoy it's own users on purpose to nudge them out of behaviour they weren't going to do anyway. It could just chose to be better.
@StreetDogg my question is : in which way is it not ideal, not fulfilling an usage need ?
@Billie @wiredfire
@Billie @wiredfire
@Lapineige @StreetDogg @wiredfire
This is exactly how #mastodon handles this: you boost AND write a reply to the post.
This ensures that your comment remains in the correct context and gives the original author the possibility to reply to you.
@Billie for my part before discussing the actual pros and cons of each system (but yes, disclaimer, I don't believe the pros of QRT outweigth the cons), I want to understand what is the actual need behind it that it supposedly not fulfilled right now, and that a QRT-like feature would fulfill.
Because I don't see or don't understand it (I never used such a feature).
@StreetDogg @wiredfire
Because I don't see or don't understand it (I never used such a feature).
@StreetDogg @wiredfire
@Lapineige
@Billie @wiredfire @Gargron
For this specific suggestion:
- Replying without mention takes extra effort to remove the mention.
- I think?! the reply still shows up in the thread, but I don't want to be part of it.
- The boost and my reply are two distinct posts. I'd prefer them to be more inseparable to avoid losing context, if it gets spread around more. Specifically, I don't want the boost to be seen as endorsement and maybe not even spread what I'm reacting to more than needed.
@StreetDogg a few complementary questions to make sure I understand your points :
1) yes, but is this a big deal compared to the potential toxic usage this would allow ?
2) it does. Why would you want it not to be attached to it ?
3) thanks to 2) the context is still attached, if your comment gets boosted for instance people can still see the context, and Mastodon (and other softwares) show that your comment is a reply (so people and incited in opening the thread).
@Billie @wiredfire @Gargron
@StreetDogg
3) if you don't want it to be seen as endorsement, couldn't your comment clarify that ?
And in which case would you want it not to receive additional visibility that a quote would give it anyway ?
My comment can clarify that, but I have no control over who reads my comment if it's two separate posts.
Adding reach to a bad post by reacting to it is one of the big dilemmas of Social Media, maybe all media, even if the reaction is a critique or correction. Nobody has a good solution for that, but direct boosting of bad or maybe even dangerous posts is a step in the wrong direction. QT at least make it a bit harder to spread it further without the critique.
@Lapineige @Billie @wiredfire @Gargron
1) I'm not convinced QTs would be a net negative, to be honest. Their lack might even encourage toxic reply guy behaviour. The extra effort is just frustrating & discourages the usage of the service. It doesn't make its usage impossible, but since it can still be done, this annoyance doesn't even succeed in stopping the toxic behaviour it targets. It's an attempt to nudge the "bad guys" away from specific ways to communicate by providing a worse service.
@Lapineige @Billie @wiredfire @Gargron
2) Usually I quote-tweet when the OP is not reading replies anyway (it's an organisation or large account) or if I'm not interested in a conversation with the OP or other people in the thread, for example if I think they are hopelessly lost individuals. So I don't want them to react to me & if my own followers chose to react I don't want to be part of a pointless and often unpleasant conversation. I've become too old to pick fights on SM all the time. :-)
@Lapineige @Billie @wiredfire @Gargron
And for 3) The context is not lost entirely but readers have to take effort to explicitly look it up. It's nice to have the chance to do so, but it's better if they don't have to and my reaction and what I'm reacting to is always shown together. Depending on the details my own post without the quote might be pretty worthless or potentially even misleading. Why make it needlessly hard for the readers to find out what it's about?
@StreetDogg I won't debate the whole costs/benefits of such a feature, but I dont think it's intended to block "bad guys" from doing bad stuff (they would do it anyway). To me it's rather a way to increase the cost of such a behavior, maybe for "bad guys" but mainly for all of us, to create friction that tends to reduce toxic behaviors. In that extend (reducing, not removing) it can succeed.
@Billie @wiredfire
@Billie @wiredfire
Jo (she/they)@Billie The #Mastodon API is actually the outlier when it comes to the server-side ability to quote toot on the #Fediverse
@jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @[email protected]
@jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @[email protected]
alapite@Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron What exactly is the problem if you can choose to opt out of the feature entirely (and, even better, need to actively opt-in to begin with)? Why does the feature have to be denied for everyone just because some people dislike it? I really don’t understand this absolutist mindset.
clacke: exhausted pixie dream boy 🇸🇪🇭🇰💙💛@alapite The problem is pretty obvious if person A cannot opt out of person B using it on person A's post.
If that's made possible, then adding the feature will be less problematic.
Allow people to choose whether their posts will generate link previews, perhaps. And then a QT is just a link that generates a link preview.
@Billie @twit_terrorist @wiredfire @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @Gargron
If that's made possible, then adding the feature will be less problematic.
Allow people to choose whether their posts will generate link previews, perhaps. And then a QT is just a link that generates a link preview.
@Billie @twit_terrorist @wiredfire @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @Gargron
@clacke @Gargron @twit_terrorist @wiredfire @alapite @jurjen_heeck @awarsing
The main issue is that you this way detach the original author from the discussion and detach the replies made on the original thread from your post.
In RL, this corresponds to throwing the original author and the repliers out of the conference room and continue discussing.
Both in RL and virtually this is simply bad behavior & toxic.
You can simply reply AND boost. This keeps the discussion intact.
@Billie @clacke @Gargron @twit_terrorist @wiredfire @jurjen_heeck @awarsing You may find it a suboptimal way to interact, but you also need to accept that others have preferences which may differ from yours, and they should be allowed their “flawed” tastes as long as they aren’t forcing them down your throat. “Live and let live”, as the saying goes.
@clacke @Gargron @Billie @twit_terrorist @wiredfire @jurjen_heeck @awarsing On this point I am in complete agreement with you. Nobody should be forced to participate if they don’t want to, and people shouldn’t be bounced into it by default. The choice to allow QTs must be a conscious one, revocable at any time and on a case-by-case basis.
Līga@alapite @Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron why do you need QT's? What do you use it for? Most people have not been missing it, and preferred not to have it for a few years now. At this point why bother?
@Liga @Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron If you don’t need or want it, good for you, but it’s not your place to tell others what they ought to want or need. Such an attitude makes you no different from the scolds and moralizers eager to tell everyone else what they may read, what they may watch, and what sorts of intimacy they may indulge in behind closed doors.
@alapite @Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron I'm not scolding I'm asking.
@alapite @Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron omg I just went through your TL in which you scolded people over and over for their posts.
@alapite @Liga @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron
As said before in many posts around the #fediverse, you can boost AND reply to a post. That is how it works with #activitypub .
So there is no need for a new function at all.