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
@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.
@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)"