|
Top-level
 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. 12 comments
@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. |
Gregory's Server
@davidaugust @Gargron
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.