Gregory's Server
If we did do it we'd like to make it something you can opt out of, in a similar way to how we plan to allow disabling replies. It's not entirely trivial.
|
279 comments
12
@davidaugust @Gargron maybe an account wide option? like disable for all posts. idk i think i prefer a case by case basis  @sirsean @Gargron while technically vastly different, both account-wide and granular control are possible. One could even theoretically build the feature to only apply for certain hastags. The bigger issue is do users have to opt-out of it, or opt-in to it. Most people use default, so an opt-in would mean most would be like they are now. An opt-out would mean most would not be like things are now. Adding it as an option one can _opt-in_ to seems a solid option to me. @davidaugust @sirsean @Gargron This is exactly my opinion on this: ok to add it, but with an opt-in option, best should be a granular opt-in. Coming from TW like many of us recently, I'm pretty convinced this functionality is one of ways to hell when it is used badly. I agree. Quote tweets very often have been and are used in ways that increase harassment and decrease safety. That doesn’t mean something better can’t be built, but getting it right, and giving users a lot of intuitive control over how their content ends up, sounds good. And an opt-in seems like it’d help.  @davidaugust @Gargron @abies77 @sirsean This. You never know how people run away with a toot. It can be fun, it can also be toxic. I rarely miss it. I like it non-toxic. So definitely opt-in, if at all. I don't see how one could retract once fired, other than by deleting the toot. Also, I think the higher demand is skewed by the latest wave of refugees from the birdsite. Lots of multifollower journalists and influencers. Eager to rebuild multifollower again. By quoting. Nah. Don't wanna. > Most people use default, so an opt-in would mean most would be like they are now.
Right now, non-Mastodon users can quote post just fine, even quote posting Mastodon user posts. So opt-in wouldn't be the current sitaution as they are now on the fediverse.  @davidaugust @sirsean @Gargron I think opting in is better too. I appreciate this space! It's really fun. @jawarajabbi @sirsean @Gargron Me too! It is really fun! And even if people disagree, it seems people are mainly friendly while doing so and things don't fall into wrath. I like it here.  @davidaugust @sirsean @Gargron absolutely this. Opt in should be the only way to implement it. @TacticalGrace_ @sirsean @Gargron Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one thinking that'd be cool. @Gargron exactly what i was thinking! opt out makes quote tweeting more viable. @myownpetard @Gargron or require the feature be opted into. Default settings often end up deciding what people do for them. Most users do not opt-out of things in many contexts. Absolutely. Clarity will be paramount. Not sure how interfaces can show what happens if your quote boost my quote boost of a toot if we are all on different instances with different moderation and federation policies. And beyond Mastodon, how does every other part of the Fediverse, even Wordpress and possibly Tumblr and Flickr soon handle this if ActivityPub (the protocol they interconnect with) doesn't support quote shares?
[DATA EXPUNGED]
 @wiredfire Coming from there myself, I've often missed these features but I've come to appreciate that Mastodon is not the same, and it's not made to generate excitement or "go viral". This is what makes it a much better place to be. Giving in to demands of people who want a bird site clone means giving up Mastodon's "USP". @wiredfire @salino @wiredfire @Cocohead @Gargron Is there data showing the lack of quote re-share is a major obstacle to adoption? I'd love to read about that. @salino @Cocohead @Gargron it’s a massive concern about the direction being considered. As you suggest, today quotes, tomorrow global search? I really hope not. Or maybe this will fracture Mastodon. Maybe we’ll get a well supported fork that sticks with the current (?) principles for those servers that want it. We’d all still be able to keep in touch thanks to ActivityPub while not following the Path of the Bluebird. @wiredfire @Cocohead  @Cocohead @Gargron yes as it does of course fork the original discussion into lots of separate fragments, instead of plain boosts drawing everyone into that original discussion which helped the original poster. I am now understanding why Mastodon had it this way, as it added to the central discussion for everyone. It will change how and where discussions happen, but maybe a poll is good idea too to what users want.  @Gargron i think people are just used to having what they are used to, maybe invent something new that achieve similar goals without the drawbacks? I’d rather not have it  @kangaroo5383 @Gargron the whole debate seems ridiculous to me. Any social media platform converges to what has been here for 40 years : e-mail. You can reply and you can forward. To call it gossip if you forward something to your followers and comment on it is a very narrow perception about what forwarding is or can be. @markuswerle @Gargron i did not say it IS gossip, i said the interaction paradigm is LIKE gossip, if you can’t tell the difference I doubt this can be a productive discussion. Sure, emails, might as well call them letters. @kangaroo5383 @Gargron and as a C++ software developer I do know is-a-relationships as inheritance which means they behave LIKE their derived-from classes. So at least the concept of similarity (aka LIKE) might have a semantic that does not support your case.  @markuswerle @kangaroo5383 @Gargron I actually support the addition of QT, but what you call “splitting hairs” is actually central to the issue. This is a social technology in ways email’s Reply All or forwards are not, and it’d be foolish to ignore the human factor that is different from those contexts. Perhaps what we need here isn’t opining about C++ class inheritance, but rather an understanding of human sociology? @markuswerle @kangaroo5383 @Gargron Because the purported issue with QT is its tendency to encourage performative quoting and attempts to “dunk on” or even brigade people — potentially with the quoter having many, many thousands of followers. And, being social media, there is an asymmetry that can occur. This is a question of how a technology’s implementation interfaces with human nature, not something so cut and dry as inheritance. @markuswerle @kangaroo5383 @Gargron I think your labelling “ridiculous” what is actually a large topic of research: how to build fit for purpose information environments  @Gargron I personally don’t use them for sport, or direct my approach or message through them or that way… that’s just me… It may feel a little “busier” on the feed, but if there is a way we can opt out of seeing them/having the feature… then I’m that person. @Gargron and I would have them turned off for my posts to not be quote-posted… I like the thread convo…   @apLundell @Gargron yeah. opt in IF you want it able to be done to your posts. not another thing people need to know about to sort, hunt and set... @Gargron I've already heard people in here talking about ways to attract advertisers... OMG...
[DATA EXPUNGED]
 @Gargron I think not having quotes is the best thing about here. On the bird site my time line was full of people quote tweeting the extreme right to rant about how bad they were. This massively increased the rights reach. Without quote toots my time line is calm and I can believe the human race is not totally lost This is the biggest part of how quote-tweets damage Twitter. It's a design choice that encourages people to amplify and accidentally normalize extremist wack-jobs. Opt-out won't fix that. @stephenwhq @Gargron given we have evidence of how the feature has been used in Twitter I believe the overall result would be negative. It encourages mockery and abusive “pile-ons” while simultaneously discouraged actual conversations. It’s a poisonous feature. @wiredfire @Gargron Yes, as a longtime Twitter user its a feature which underpins some of its most toxic features. It's also powerful to assist community mobilisation, help small creators spread the woerd, etc. I'm on the fence although a feature allowing you not to be quote tweeted is very useful. @stephenwhq @Gargron any tool / feature has the capability of positive use, of course, but we have to consider if that is worth the negative. In the case of quotes, and going on Twitter as the real world example of it, I’d say it’s not.  @Gargron @Gargron In that case: also the ability to turn on a notification if toots are quotes.  @Gargron I liked an idea I heard from @alasaarela where he considered being able to do either a quote-boost (above) or a comment-boost (below), depending on the situation.
[DATA EXPUNGED]
@Gargron donc l'un des fondateurs/développeurs de Masto revient sur sa pensée initiale et pense mettre en place les citations, comme sur Twitter, mais avec la possibilité de ne pas les autoriser individuellement... @Gargron Yet ANOTHER feature #Mastodon has over #Twitter_Exit @Gargron Thank you for considering this. Please consider taking a look at this Fediverse Enhancement Proposal for an existing standard on how quote posts are implemented: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-e232-object-links/2722  @Gargron it's not trivial at all! Doing it safely, will take a lot of people hours to actually moderate, and software support for actually doing that moderation... and more! The reasons for not having them are valid. So are the reasons for having them. I would strongly suggest seeking guidance from folks like @timnitGebru and others she recommends. We can make a difference and build software that supports human efforts to do better. We just need to listen, and listen again.
[DATA EXPUNGED]
@gargron I don't know how I feel about that. We don't want to become like Twitter. Or do we? @Gargron Could you start with quote-posts for only your own posts? That would already be quite useful @Gargron the problem I see is that if someone posts something spiteful or disgusting it gets amplified. Even though lots of people will QT with stuff like 'I can't believe they posted this' it still gets seen by more people than it deserves and the hate poster is happy that they're getting attention. @ArtBrew@mastodon.social @Gargron@mastodon.social people screenshot posts anyways, but at least with quotes you'll be notified about it, and the quote will be linked to the original. So I think if it's gonna happen anyway, better have the quote...  What happens on other instances and software that doesn't support the extended disable feature? Asking since replies, quote posts (in other fedi software) etc. are already a thing.
@Gargron I appreciate you and your team listening to the discussion and reconsidering your position. I hope you'll be able to implement the multi-level permissions that have been suggested — not just on or off, but the ability to limit QT to followers, followed, and/or mutuals would be greatly appreciated as well, but if that's too difficult, just a simple on-off setting would be better than nothing. @Gargron urgh.. so this is the start of pandering to the crowd that just wish Mastodon was a perfect clone of Twitter instead of being something different >_<  @Gargron great! I hope those. - opt-out per posts and default setting @w4ts0n @Gargron the main argument against opt-in is that most people won't know about it and therefore very few posts will be able to be toot boosted and therefore the setting may languish and not have uptake, even among the many people who might be happy for their own toots to be toot boosted, if they knew they could enable it. People annoyed by the their toots being toot boosted are probably a lot more likely to chase down a solution. That said, the privacy friendly way is to make it opt-in Thank you so much. I came into your replies to ask for an opt-out, and you've already considered it. You have my thanks, and I complement you on being a thoughtful (and apparently good) developer @Gargron Fantastic! Honestly that's all I need. I get that it has useful purposes but not all of us like going "viral" from QTs @Gargron I'm still not a fan tbh, but we'll adapt like with any change. Personally I strongly favor an opt-in rather than opt-out. Maybe run a poll on those options? 😎 @Gargron can it be made into a fifth level of visibility, a bit like: Quotable That way, If I want to allow something to be quoted far and wide, I can set it accordingly. @Gargron this seems like a measured and reasonable approach, thank you. As a Johhny-come-lately, QT is the one thing I miss the most from my near decade on the birdsite. In my fandom community, we mostly used it to boost while gushing over the thing we were boosting, or to add our perspective to a thing we saw. I get that it can be abused, but with the real live moderation here, that kind of bs can be nipped in the bud, and we could be free to gush in peace. 🥰🥰🥰 @Gargron can you opt out seeing quote toots? Because they often are performative acts of anger. "See how angry i am about this toot". Not seeing this kind of content is the main reason for me to stay here. @Gargron @Gargron I was for quote-posts but when I read the reasonings of others I reconsidered. Opting in makes more sense imo. It should be off by default, with folks having that option turned on if they want. The biggest risk is reproducing the worst of Twitter which was when people (myself included) quote-tweeted extremists to respond to them or dunk on them, inadvertently boosting them instead of actually stopping them. I hope that won't be replicated on Mastodon.  @gargron Saw a somewhat charming approach some days ago. Instead of embedding the other post, the original post was shown prior in the feed, and the „quoting post“ as a response. This way it is possible to refere to another post in a direct way, but the initial post is still prioritized. This could be a good compromise from my view. In this case this was a solution on the App side, which just worked when reply and boost were in the same timeframe. @Gargron I can guarantee that those complaining there isn’t a QT feature will not be happy if they’re not able to QT because that person had opted out. But 100% agree that we should be able to opt out. I expect most people will be switching it off.  @Gargron Thanks for looking at this, I'd like to have it, but also agree with concerns about it being a vector for dog-piling. Its a complicated one, we can link toots now, but quoting definitely changes all the human behavior around it. Maybe also let instances enable/disable posting quote toots, and enable/disable if the quote is shown or just a link? @Gargron Please consider using opt-in as a default approach rather than opt-out. It is so much cleaner for new people to first understand what the ramifications of certain features are before opting in, than having a laundry list for new people where you say "quick turn of search engine indexing, quoting, this that and the next thing". Opt-out makes onboarding more daunting, and it is used so cynically on commercial offerings to extract value. @Gargron QTs strip context. If we do QTs, they should probably note whether quote is part of thread or discussion. The goal should be to show the right amount of info to emphasize that the reader should look further and not simply take the most immediately quoted toot at face value. 
[DATA EXPUNGED]
@Gargron it’d be great being able to opt-out it on account-level, as well as post-per-post basis @Gargron How about this for QuoteToots? By default only posts with hashtags can be quoted (after all, they are intended to be fairly public). Accounts can change to AlwaysAllow if they are, for instance, a news or campaign organisation or just want their Mastodon experience to be more public. Accounts can change to AlwaysBlock if they are concerned about abuse or wish their Mastodon experience to be more intimate. @Gargron I'm fine like this, but in case you will change your mind, would you please consider the option of a feature enabling admins to disable quote replies at instance level? This will allow to remove at local level a potentially toxic feature whose absence was wisely enforced by design up to now. Thanks! @Gargron QTs weren't something that I thought about until coming here and reading your and others thoughts on the negative points about them. Which convinced me to be opposed to them. So if you so add the feature I'd prefer an opt-in rather than opt-out. I'm not sure opt-in would work though because I guess people wouldn't opt-in in enough numbers to make it useful for those that do want it. 
[DATA EXPUNGED]
 @Gargron I think, I would be annoyed by not being able to respond. Could we have a filter for this kind of toots? @Gargron I've only seen journalists asking for it, so opt-in would make sense I guess? @Gargron disabled replies is one of the more frustrating features of Twitter. On Mastodon, you can already only ask the people who are following you. Disabling replies leads to public posts with questions you can’t answer. Perhaps you can have an opt-in system that allows quote boosting if the quoted writer allows it. The settings could be: Allow quote boosts... @Gargron I think this would be a bad idea, and for exactly the same reasons you ruled it out before.  @Gargron 's plan to modify Mastodon to disable replies strikes me as profoundly misguided and likely to make fighting disinformation and lies more difficult. No one who makes a public statement should have either the right or means to constrain replies -- whether positive or negative. If it is within one's right to speak, it is certainly within another's right to respond.
[DATA EXPUNGED]
 @Gargron I wish you wisdom. I do personally not miss the functionality and am, after eight weeks of tooting, quite convinced that your arguments for not implementing it are as valid now as they were then and increase the value of the platform. Just my two cents, mind. |
@Gargron THANK YOU.