@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.
@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 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 @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.
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.
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".
@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.
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)"