|
Top-level
 > inevitably adds toxicity to people's behaviours The word "inevitably" tells me this isn't true, and my own use of quote tweets, and the people I follow on Twitter using Quote tweets shows how important they are. You can certainly decide what you like and don't like on your own platform, but please don't make statements which are demonstrably false. 6 comments
 I want to argue about the words @Gargron used, but let's move on to content. The challenge with quote-tweets not being available is that they are useful as a mechanism for contextualizing, and that alone can be used for good, or ill. Can it be used for toxic behavior? Yes, but I'd like to see more about why this idea of inevitability comes from, and I'd like this discussion without absolutism or rhetoric, hence my frustration. I'll go one step further... Its function to separate a discussion from the original author can often be important. In the case of hate speech, it's quite common for an antisemite to post something, for a Jew to reply, then get blocked. Quote tweets allow someone to have a discussion separate from the author. That's the context I see it most in. If there's another mechanism we can use for similar interactions, please, please show me! Do we need to use screenshots?  @emacsen @mpjgregoire @Gargron Also going to address the elephant in the bathroom: Screenshots means the accessibility is heavily broken (specially as img alt attributes are supposed to be short).
Email style quotes would probably be better. |
Gregory's Server
@emacsen
It could be inevitable as a general phenomenon, but evitable in specific cases — like the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Apparently the creators of the quote-tweet have had second thoughts: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/how-the-retweet-ruined-the-internet
(Via https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-twitter?s=w )
@Gargron