Gregory's Server@Gargron I hope you don't add it, but if you do, at least give us the option to block quoted posts from people, please.
|
29 comments
@jurjen_heeck @twit_terrorist @Gargron yeah, they said they're probably going to make it so that you fan opt out of being quote booated (QBed?) @jurjen_heeck @twit_terrorist @Gargron One can simply link to a post, but the nicely formatted graph data doesn't display. I don't see the difference in linking to URL or quote posting. I think if you post something to a public website, others should be able to interact with that post. Turning off comments, muting, blocking are legit methods to control your personal experience, but pre-editorializing who can link to a public post I think goes too far. @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron At the moment you can prevent boosting as well. If the same method prevents your posts to be visual in an embedded fashion that would be fine imo. If in such a case the link to the original post is visible that's o.k., that gives a whole different experience for the viewer as it requires more action.  @awarsing @jurjen_heeck @twit_terrorist @Gargron the difference is the immediate visibility of the content combined with, often as seen on Twitter, a call to pile-on or otherwise disparage the original post / author. We see this happening a LOT on Twitter. We really don’t need to add routes for bullying and abuse here. @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron boosting gives it the same visibility. It’s not the features that are toxic, people are toxic, regardless of the features. I miss qrt a lot. I don’t want to be a mere booster, just an amplifier. I want to ad my vision and my context to it. I’m using link to the toot, and my comment. I’m very sorry that you had such a terrible timeline on the other side, with such horrible qrt. It was very different from my own experience. @jonasnuts @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron You’re right, people are toxic not features but people use features and we ignore that at our peril. You don’t have to be just a booster. Start your own conversation based on something you’ve seen! It takes fractionally more effort and is massively more valuable to the community. @wiredfire it’s what I’m doing. But I want to credit the author of the original ideia, thus the qrt. I’m using link to the original toot, mention of the author (it it makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t), and ad my comment. With the new link preview it’s almost the same. @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron @jonasnuts @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron you can credit the author without a quote. @wiredfire yes, I can. Because the problem is not the qrt. The problem is not the feature. It’s people. I can choose to be an asshole without qrt :-) unfollow, mute, block. People have the tools to manage what content they see, they don’t need a sysadmin to decide what’s best for them. Features are not toxic. People are. The game changer, here, is the absence of an algorithm. The rest it’s peanuts, fait divers. @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron  @wiredfire using the same line of thought, so can someone with toxicity in mind 😉 @wiredfire @jonasnuts @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron UX and UI design is about the consequences of our decisions. If a design choice has unintended consequences, that is on the designer, not the user. You can encourage and discourage all sorts of behaviour through design. This is similar to saying "guns don't kill people, people do". If the tool makes a task easier, the task will be repeated more often. @mdstevens0612 I can see your point, but the difference from a feature to a gun, is that the “target” has de ability to control the bullet. You can choose witch bullets you take, witch bullets you dodge:-) @wiredfire @jurjen_heeck @awarsing @twit_terrorist @Gargron @mdstevens0612 you are right, “If the tool makes a task easier, the task will be repeated more often.” But why do you assume the users will use it in the negative and not in the positive way, now that there’s no algorithms to push the negativity? Why do you assume only positive usage? Your quote also applies to the trolling so regularly associated with quotes on Twitter currently. We say that people are the algorithm on Mastodon. People can push bad agendas. Mastodon has been insulated from that in part due to relatively small numbers of users. As that is growing so does the danger of pile-ons. Things went “viral” long before the algorithms got involved. I maintain you can do all you mentioned previously without quotes @jonasnuts @wiredfire@mastodon.social @jurjen_heeck@mastodon.social @awarsing @Gargron @wiredfire @jurjen_heeck@mastodon.nl @twit_terrorist The issue is exacerbated by algorithms but the underlying cause doesn't go away because its a pattern of human behaviour; We are susceptible to negative engagement. We need to design systems to minimize negative engagement and increase positive engagement. I don't think QRTs are good for this. @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @twit_terrorist @gargron this is exactly the reason why not to do it. Has been pointed out many times as the big positive feature compared to #birdside that this is not possible here. Quoting and boosting basically stops the discussion and changes it to a talk about the post&author, excluding her/him from any further conversation and giving the trolls a tool for harassment and insulting. Don't. @Billie @jurjen_heeck @wiredfire @awarsing @Gargron I don't know about other countries, but in mine it is used mostly to move the private conversation to public discussions, trying to draft your followers to insult your opponent (The classic QRT commenting 'How can he think THAT????'), misinterpretating a headline to push your point of view and more bullshit like that. It is not something I'm looking forward to it, to be honest... @wiredfire @awarsing @jurjen_heeck @twit_terrorist @Gargron it’s so unfortunate that was my immediate thought too :( @wiredfire @awarsing @jurjen_heeck @twit_terrorist @Gargron there’s ALREADY a “route for bullying and abuse” it’s called replies. 🙄 Maybe Quote Boosts can be integrated with existing Boost functionality and APIs, and the choices given to the user can be extended from just "Show Boosts" and "Hide Boosts" to also include "Hide Boosts with Commentary"? (I love that these are global and per-followee options.)  @hmans @twit_terrorist @Gargron In addition, two more things that resonated well with me in the recent discussion: - Let users decide whether their Toots can be quoted or not, ideally on a per-Toot-basis. Power to the people! - Put the commentary *under* the original post, so the "ownership" of the content/discussion is reflected. I'm not in an urgent need of quoted Toots, but I guess if they are introduced here, we can do a lot better than the bird site. @jens @twit_terrorist @Gargron There might also be an opportunity here to brand this a little differently. eg. "Boost Annotations" signals something entirely different, even if the technical implementation would be the same. @twit_terrorist @Gargron I could think of a few options to mitigate the unwanted effects: @mr_huffle @twit_terrorist @Gargron Being on a platform which intentionally does not have fulltext search (or did I miss something recently?), I am still very worried that quoted toots might open the gate for 'invisible discussions' about the author and not with the author. @ceha @twit_terrorist @Gargron Fully agree with your concerns about quoted posts and I understand that this is the main reason why it's not implemented. But maybe there's a way to integrate them with the original post - that's what I had in mind when talking about a "consistent view". I agree that they should not "slip away". @twit_terrorist @gargron this is a good point, cos when people QT a lot on twitter without adding anything extra it gets around the fact you may have their RTs muted, and so removes your ability to curate your feed to your liking |
@twit_terrorist @Gargron That, and the option to block my posts (individually) from being quoted.