|
Top-level
 Do not collapse into another site's UX just from pressure. Please consult the UX research on how such a feature impacts discourse, and make the choice, either way, with eyes open. It may well tilt interactions here toward animosity. The addition of quote boosts is unlikely to significantly increase adoption. Let new features improve things, not merely mimic. A noisy constituency should not rule the day just because they're loud. Thank you for all your hard work. #ux 28 comments
This thread is not about taking something away. It is about adding a feature that research showed on Twitter increased contentious interactions: quote tweets. Adding quote boosts is likely to increase toxicity and quote re-share features tend to do that on all platforms. Boosts do not reduce attribution now, they literally re-share the OP's post. Without _significant_ resources to study new quote re-shares, the interface will likely collapse into quote tweets. Plus, quote boosts dis-intergate if one quote shares a toot from a user or instance federated from one's own instance. And The current ActivityPub spec (the foundation for social media interaction far beyond Mastodon too) may not support quote shares in a way that keeps moderation controls intact, or in fact a quoted toot intact with the comment on it. @davidaugust @Gargron again. Either someone figures how to make it work, takes the risks involved in any kind of alteration, or the experience becomes flattened and the UX is actually prohibitive. In addition to obstructing the sharing of real world information. There are so many reasons. And "pleasant discourse" is just another conservative dogwhistle a ton of "liberals" use to suppress dissent. I'm unaware of anyway quote tooting vastly increases people's ability to engage in dissent. Maybe it does, but I have not encountered any indicators it does. I have seen research that it increases trolling. Dissent is a good thing. It is ore possible on platforms without quote shares, as quote tweets on Twitter have been documented to suppress marginalized voices. I am not seeking "pleasant discourse," I'm seeking safe and controlled by users discourse. @davidaugust @Gargron Okay then you must have used a completely different Twitter than me. There is plenty of research about an iteration that's been in place, but I don't see anyone writing papers about how a planned version could be implemented without an algorithm and with safety controls. Because it hasn't happened yet. I'm fine with catastrophic failure as long as some intelligent people are being responsible and productive with it. Do it. Fail hard. Let's learn. So people should build quote toots & court catastrophic failure to change things? It strikes me as a bit indirect to build a non-safety feature (that in one known iteration made things less safe) as a break-things-fast method of trying to address safety needs. I haven't seen such a tactic succeed, but maybe it is a good path to making things safer that I have missed. Maybe that is the stagnation/crisis needed cause change to address safety. And if it works, great. 1. there won't be catastrophic failure. If Twitter is a nuke, Mastodon is a slingshot. 2. You are excluding every single experience of how QTs worked except the one that fits your narrative. 3. Other people did much better research on how QT was weaponized and it's a week back in my feed somewhere. They should be consulted, not assumed to agree with your position. 4. A beta program? Yeah. That's how you fix what was wrong with the original QTs. You TRUST your users. @davidaugust @Gargron There are more developers in and around my followers/followers than there are in South Lake Union. Any of one them can explain the importance of testing features, and having real people give feedback. Probably no one will fucking die. Maybe a transphobe will get brigaded. But so far, I think this userbase shouldn't be diapered over trying to build on this. I suspect "probably no one will f*cking die," is hyperbole, but social networks of scale do deal with such things, often, so that is not reassuring. I'm honestly confused. Not sure what you think my position was. Also not sure why you think I am unaware of the unnamed other people's insights or knowledge. I'm not sure how to proceed with such mystery. I hope I have not offended, but suspect I have. I am sorry for that. If there is any way for me to make amends, please let me know and I'll do whatever I can to make things right. Be well. @davidaugust @Gargron You're just saying "no quote toots at all never" It's like chekov's quote toot. @davidaugust @Gargron You want to know what's toxic? What I never want to see? Ever? Upvotes and downvotes for content here. That's toxic. Not a word need be contributed, and the entire framework of equal, sequential discussion becomes an absolute pit. My initial reply to OP notably did _not_ say anything about no quote toots, and certainly didn't say none ever. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone else. As I said, in that toot, which YOU JUST QUOTE TOOTED JUST FINE btw, I suggested not doing things haphazardly, nor just because of noisy pressure. That toot does not say "no quote toots ever," despite you claiming, it would seem twice, that it does. In that toot I literally said, "make the choice, either way, with eyes open." @davidaugust @Gargron you made your position pretty clear. I think it's all vastly more complicated. It's my *hope* that the creator of this platform significantly increases his engagement with the people here. Because yelling into the void of the occasional post is not how you conduct user research for any kind of app or feature. @davidaugust @Gargron it's not my fault that the UI for threading replies is absolute garbage, so maybe that can get looked at first. I don't have anything further to say on the point in any case. I already had this discussion over a week ago and I'm not interested in rehashing it. All of the points were made, and on balance people are cautiously expressing a desire for a kind of resharing that gives users control of privacy and safety. If we can't implement that, then we are too toxic, too stupid and too lacking in innovation to have this platform, or the internet, or language. Wait, I never said giving users control of privacy and safety isn't great, it is. Quote tooting doesn't do that. One can build out user controls over safety and privacy without building quote toots. In fact, it is likely technically easier to do without building quote toots at the same time. We're not talking about those things independent of QTs, though, so I don't see what your point is. This platform, specifically the largest instances, needs paid moderators and that's the bottom line no one wants to deal with because it fucks with the party line. But if they're serious about safety, that's it. Yes, paid moderation could be invaluable to allow the platform and the people on it to flourish. Yes, increasing and making robust safety is essential not just for growth but even for what already exists. Yes, there should be vivid discussion about how to make things safer, for everyone, but especially for the most vulnerable. Quote toots aren't it. They make things less safe. And every moment & dollar & resource spent on quote toots is not available for safety. They don't make things less safe. They can be abused. Just like this entire platform. Just like every single aspect of online communication. If we can't figure out a way to open roads, to increase the complexity of our communication...the we're evolved to...then we should all get offline right now forever. I'm not sure that this has to be all or nothing. Yes, on Twitter, quote tweets increased engagement and much of that increase is fighting at the most mild and dangerous things in the less mild. Can we maybe have a quote re-share feature on Mastodon and the Fediverse that is safe, theoretically yes. If we can't do both those things immediately is the only other option abandoning online communication, no. No, I'm saying your position so black and white you could use it to discount 100 percent of all social risks online. Mine is the one saying there is flexibility and room to make something better. But you're dying on the absolute weirdest hill. A brand change makes it a different feature. None of it is that far apart from comments, upvotes, boosts, whatever. It's just another type of integration And as with all innovations it'll find a way to happen, ad hoc or not @davidaugust @Gargron If you do not have a path that is established within a function, quote toot, whatever, screen caps, (photoshopped?) out of context sharing, manipulated visibility through boosts, all of these actual things that can muddy the waters for the sharks... You can't moderate them. You can't ticket them. You can't trace them. You're just asking abusers to freelance their methods. A feature can be *enforced.* Twitter was SO bad at this...Eli Lilly lost a billion dollars. |
Gregory's Server
@davidaugust @Gargron Hard disagree.
Toxicity is already here. Reducing accessibility, reducing attribution, making it easier for people to misrepresent each other with no native paper trail, and taking away *any* communication functionality is not how you foster a real debate. Animosity is fine. Animosity is necessary to challenge complacency and deception. Friction is a bellwether. This can done better than Twitter, safely, with more controls, but it should be done.