@MarcoI @taylorlorenz @palafo
Here's Eugene Rochko's original explanation.
"I've made a deliberate choice against a quoting feature because it inevitably adds toxicity to people's behaviours. You are tempted to quote when you should be replying, and so you speak at your audience instead of with the person you are talking to. It becomes performative. Even when doing it for "good" like ridiculing awful comments, you are giving awful comments more eyeballs that way. No quote toots. Thanks."
https://mastodon.social/@Gargron/99662106175542726
But if you want something a little more in depth, we should look at how social media companies create engagement. And the primary method of doing this is by stoking anger.
CGP Grey did a great analysis of this
https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc
Twitter's primary purpose was to maximize shareholder value. It did this in two ways.
1) By selling your data.
2) By showing you ads.
In both cases, they want to keep you on the site as long as possible And the best way to do that is by making you angry. That's why quote tweets were created in the first place. No matter what the execs or dev teams claim, they invented quote tweets because they knew it would lead to more people dunking on each other, more hostility and more people staying on the site longer.
That's not a dynamic we want to reproduce here.
https://youtu.be/rE3j_RHkqJc