Bluesky's solution to the dreaded "quote post" feature - allow user control over whether posts can be used in quote posts or not.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to okanogen TheEnemyFromWithin last edited by
It is a good thing to look at the Bluesky implementation and see what lessons can be learned. It seems like they are learning that unfettered quoteposts have abuse issues, and that is why they are doing this detach thing.
The question remains, if this is enough? Some sort of control by the original poster over whether their post can be quoted, BEFORE the post is quoteposted, seems kind of necessary.
Simply stated, users should be able to mark their posts as NOT QUOTABLE.
-
@mastodonmigration @AkaSci On Mastodon, if I reply to a post (without boosting that) and the original poster edits or removes that post, do I get notified?
-
Don't know.
-
@mastodonmigration @AkaSci The answer is no. I get edit notifications only if I boosted specifically (not only faved or replied). Despite the fact that an edit could make the reply unfitting the new context. There are no delete notifications for posts I interacted with at all, as far as I know.
-
@mastodonmigration @AkaSci (Related, if I reply and later edit my reply, the person mentioned only gets the original reply as notification, but not for the edit)
-
Got it. So long as you can turn off allowing your post to be quoteposted for any post, seems like a good solution. And, the additional ability to detach it after the fact is good. Would be nice to have a global, "never allow quoteposting of my posts."
-
Honestly not following all the cases you describe, but they do seem like things that could be abused. Introduction of editing certainly created the potential for all sorts of "completely changed the context of the post" kinds of issues. These were a subject of lots of conversation prior to getting editing of posts. However, have not seen rampant abuse of editing along these lines. And think most everyone likes editing and would not go back.
1/n
-
@mastodonmigration @AkaSci 3 would be a very (perhaps overly) Mastodon-y approach, and then basically everyone would set it to "no"
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
That is not to say these potential issues should not be addressed. Just that it is necessary to balance the benefits that introduction of new features can provide against the potential for abuse of those feature and somehow sort out what is and is not in practice going to be a problem.
-
@mastodonmigration @AkaSci Yeah that's ok. Mine was just an example in order to ask you not to do double standards against BS compared to here.
-
Actually doubt it. Would guess that most people would welcome having their post's being quoteposted, so long as they could monitor the situation and "detach" them from abusive posts.
Another topic of discussion would certainly be what is the default? Are your post's automatically quotable unless you turn it off, or do you need to turn it on?
-
Trying very hard not to have double standards. Think that we can learn a lot from Bluesky's experience with quoteposts and starter packs. Two capabilities that hold the promise to make Mastodon better if implemented with appropriate user safety and consent considerations.
This is an entirely separate conversation from the ownership of Bluesky and their as yet unrealized 'distributed' architecture, and the potential for user capture and marginalization.
-
@mastodonmigration @project1enigma
Also, we should not look at benefits vs potential for abuse just from our own personal preferences but also judge how others might perceive them. E.g., how do the large number of scientists, researchers and academics (who we would love to see migrate to Mastodon) perceive the benefits vs dangers of these features. -
Robert Kingettreplied to okanogen TheEnemyFromWithin last edited by
BSky has an option to prevent people from quoting posts, right? So they've added features straight from our concerns and discussions. @Okanogen @AkaSci @mastodonmigration
-
Still, screenshots still exist. Which can be used for good or bad.
-
Great point. For instance, different groups have very different sensitivities to potential vectors for abuse.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to SpaceLifeForm last edited by
Exactly. And you can link the original page of a post. So these workarounds to quoteposting are now done and have the potential for being abused, but are problems masked by it being these methods being kludgy and therefore rarely done, or are some of the concerns misplaced?
-
Georgiana Brummellreplied to Robert Kingett last edited by@WeirdWriter @mastodonmigration @Okanogen @AkaSci Why would anyone have an option to prevent quoting posts? Sometimes, it's necessary to explain the meaning of something or to put it into context. Besides, you could just copy and paste the relevant post, or part of the post, into your own.
-
Mastodon Migrationreplied to Georgiana Brummell last edited by
@dandylover1 @Okanogen @AkaSci @WeirdWriter
The argument goes that it is a potential way to abuse someone. Let's say that someone posts something that someone else wants to ridicule. They can quotepost the post along with some abusive comments and @ mention a dozen of their friends who can do likewise, thereby heaping abuse on the poster. This happened on Twitter.
So a lot of the discussion centers around how to do QP's without them becoming such a means of abusing others.
-
okanogen TheEnemyFromWithinreplied to Mastodon Migration last edited by
@mastodonmigration @dandylover1 @AkaSci @WeirdWriter
Yes. Someone posts something vaguely, but not obviously, racist, sexist, bigoted? Why should they be called out? Or maybe made an example? Or context added?
Someone else posts something laudatory, an excellent example, needs additional content.
Can't have that, can we?
