Like it or not, @gargron is right. Showing vulnerability is easier when people literally can’t quote-post anything you say to throw people at you. And that design visibly shapes communities and heals people

Mastodon as a platform gets called recuperative, healing, safe. But it’s not out of obscurity. It’s because it cultivated and encourages dialogue, not engagement; extensibility, not a standardized user experience; control, not metrics.

I sound like a zealot, but I’ve seen it happening for years now. People get better here and they get worse there. And that is an irresistible attraction regardless of discourse or people problems. It’s purposeful, ingenious design.

@matilde that said it has nothing to do with the creator of the software, but the early community.
The creator of the software does not make software with this in mind, specially since the early queer community is not the majority of the user anymore.

I guess I'm saying that while it is there now, we'll ned to fight to keep it there.

@kyzh no quotes is something he specifically pushed for in this case

@matilde first my appologies for jumping in your mention. That is very un tactful of me.

Then while he said that, it doesnt change the fact that he doesnt take feedback on the similar time of feature (that have a similar type of problem), explicitelly.

@kyzh i posted because i wanted a conversation, not because i wanted to be left alone.

@kyzh secondly, i would stop taking advice on what *not to support* from embittered people, and in fact, abandon that praxis entirely, and support people who actually do things, and are doing them well, with some flaws, making them better.

@matilde i hate that i still catch myself doing this on twitter sometimes because it really is one of the stupidest and least constructive responses possible

@matilde @darius @Gargron quote-posts have degraded to the cheap dunks on the birdsite

@matilde @Gargron I hadn’t really registered this until you point it out and now you’s so manifestly true I wonder how I could have missed it for so long.

@matilde @gargron I agree! One of the first things I realized upon moving to Mastodon was what a mistake "retweet with comment" was. Not only can it be used to make fun of people, it also encourages rebroadcasting things you disagree with...which is so backwards when you think about it...!

The thing that was getting me down the most on birdsite, I think, was good people retweeting harmful things, even if it was to complain about it.

@Lexi @matilde @Gargron I think opposite, from my point of view it's one of the best Twitter features and I miss it a lot on Mastodon. It allows you to react and be visible in the timeline at the same time. To achieve it on Mastodon you have to reply and boost your own toot, which looks desperate.

@Mac_CZ @Lexi @matilde @Gargron Perhaps we should be less concerned with appearances and visibility... not all reactions need to be public, either. The existence of the feature encourages exactly those bad behaviors you just described.

@trwnh @Lexi @matilde @Gargron From my point of view it's not bad behavior, so it's good to encourage it. As with everything: If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't take away the possibility from the others. That's evil behavior.

@Mac_CZ @trwnh @Lexi @gargron I’ve described how this design avoids the incentive to hurt others on purpose. You haven’t addressed this at all beyond “well I don’t think that, and moreover, any purposeful design is evil!”

@matilde @trwnh @Lexi @Gargron It doesn't prevent anything, it's still possible to do screenshot and post it with comment. If somebody feels hurt by some post (which seems bit childish), there are standard ways, like block.

@Mac_CZ @matilde @trwnh @gargron If it's childish to be hurt by a post, why does Mastodon have content warnings? :blobmelt:

@Lexi @matilde @trwnh @Gargron I don't know, seems like completely useless annoyance. Probably to force you to buy new mouse, when you destroy the old one with pointless clicking to every CW post.

@Mac_CZ @matilde @trwnh @gargron I think I'd feel a little selfish if I said, "I'm not affected by [X], so I'm not going to use a content warning for [X]."

@thor @matilde @gargron Good point. I'm not sure it's worth it for the bad it can bring, but others might feel differently. Heck, if it had a content warning each time (maybe optionally, like the "mark all images as sensitive" option), I probably wouldn't mind as much.

@Lexi @thor @matilde @Gargron

I *strongly* agree that eliminating quote—tweeting was one of Mastodon's best choices. Mastodon makes it as easy as possible to talk *to* other Mastodon users, while making it harder to talk *about* other Mastodon users.

Yes, as @thor said, there are times I miss it. But I think the trade off is more than worth it, and there's no way to change without endangering the culture of talking to, not talking about.

@thor @Lexi @matilde @Gargron

I think that any tool that lets you "put part of a thread on their screen" would *also* let someone else mock/bully someone for part of a thread.

I also think that the issue with out-of-context toots can be addressed by adding a bit more context. For example, if someone boosted your last toot, it wouldn't make much sense out of context. But, if you wanted it to, you could have said "I think [removing quote toots is] throwing the baby out with the bath water".

@Lexi @matilde @Gargron An excellent point about how very small affordances and dynamics can be hugely significant.

@matilde @Gargron I'd like to object to that: Rebroadcasting things you disagree with in a framed way is important for discussing/ pointing out things you find wrong with an explanation to your followers.
There are some things I don't discuss with the original posters (e.g. I don't discuss with nazis), but I still want to educate people about their manipulative arguments or lies.

Even more important, criticism and the object of critics are a single unit.

@matilde @Gargron It's probably another use case. I just wanted to point out that CommentRT doesn't only have downsides. One can weigh the different consequences of that feature against each other and then decide for being better of without it, though.

@schmittlauch @gargron No, what I'm saying is that the use case you describe is literally one that enables abuse. To frame someone's message and make a public example of them is not acceptable and needs to be unlearned

@matilde @Gargron I guess you can't really prevent that. IMHO that feature was ann attempt to prevent people from posting screenshots of tweets, which is also an antipattern.

How should I deal with the described posts then? I see that the possibility of commenting a post publicly *enables* abuse, but in the end it matters of *how* stuff is commented to make it abuse or not. Furthermore, I'd prefer to "that thing @ foo did is bad" instead of "@ foo is bad (as a whole/ as a person)"

@Lexi @matilde @Gargron Absofuckinglutely. In order to engage using words, you have to REPLY. You can't just dump something on only your page where all your followers can see it and attack.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal support us on patreon or liberapay!