Martin FowlerAug 6, 2023

+1 to @jwz 's argument that replies to posts on mastodon should be treated similarly to comments on blogs

https://www.jwz.org/blog/2023/08/mastodons-mastodonts/

Mastodon's Mastodon'ts

There are a few fundamentally broken things about how Mastodon posts work that are terrible vectors for abuse, as well as being bad for basic usability. Maybe they are fixable, I don't know. To be clear: I am a fan of Mastodon. I have been enjoying my time there much more than I ever enjoyed Twitter or Facebook or Instagram. And I am 100% in the "I won't touch anything Jack Dorsey has ...

Show threadFelix Denbratt

@mfowler @jwz very interesting suggestion - but would also come with other cons, such as making it more difficult to start very valid discussions around posts that the post author might not support. Also federation might be impacted since it might then not be possible to comment on federated posts from other software than Mastodon.

I think I prefer how it works right now - but I look forward to follow these discussions. :-)

Aug 6, 2023 at 6:57amWeb
Show threadjwzAug 6, 2023
@fede @mfowler
If you want to have "discussions around posts that the post author might not support" then you do that by making your own top-level post to YOUR OWN followers. You are not owed amplification and audience and reach by the person with whom you disagree. Post to your own followers. Canonical and not at all hypothetical example: post author thinks that Jews and Blacks are fine and you do not.
Show threadFelix DenbrattAug 6, 2023

@jwz @mfowler I considered that as well, but that would mean a more fragmented discussion.

Since your example was a bit extreme here is a similar example to consider: what if a homophobic politician is spreading a dangerous idea for a reform and it’s important to spread awareness about. That would be much more efficient if you are able to comment on the posts without the original author being able to censor that.

Open discussions are quite valuable even if you would disagree with their point and giving the original author power to censor critics might not be in the best interest of this platform.

If you want only your view and the comments of people who think exactly like you to be visible, then there already is a medium for that: blogs and websites

Show threadLouie Mantia, Jr.Aug 6, 2023

@fede Your suggestion is… “If you don't like it, leave." Twitter did that, and the only the worst stayed.

Every post is not an open invitation for public discourse. Jerks should not feel entitled to piggyback on others’ popularity.

There are solutions for if there's a horrible *root* user post (even if they remove replies). An instance or user can block that user's entire instance or just the user.

But there's no recourse for if someone's annoying in the replies. They just get free attention.

Show threadLouie Mantia, Jr.Aug 6, 2023

@fede The idea that social media (for everyone) must be that anything goes in the comments is frankly kinda bs.

It's not just the most horrible comments that should be reported. Most of the problem I see is discourse that is just... needlessly hostile. No one's breaking any rules, they're just being obnoxious.

I don't think replies should be *deleted* but I do think they should be *detached*.

They shouldn't get the benefit of being seen by people who follow me for *my* posts.

Show threadSörenAug 6, 2023

@fede @jwz @mfowler

> I considered that as well, but that would mean a more fragmented discussion.

That’s a feature, not a bug.

> what if a homophobic politician is spreading a dangerous idea for a reform and it’s important to spread awareness about.

Then replying to them in exasperation accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Show threadchris martensAug 6, 2023
@fede @jwz @mfowler what you’re describing sounds an awful lot like a quote-post, which also has the problem of directing abuse at OP. Unfortunately there doesn’t seem to be a good solution that works both for when replier vs replied-to holds more clout/power/visibility
Show threadJesseAug 6, 2023
@chrisamaphone @fede @jwz @mfowler I think the best compromise is to allow quote posts and unsolicited mentions by default, but a user can disable native quotes of their own posts (across the board or individually), and block annoying (or worse) mentioners. People can still make their case without access to the platform of the person they disagree with.