Quoted posts
-
@Panzz said in Quoted posts:
Quotes should involve resources. With the current citation mechanism, if the user deletes the original post, the quoted content will still exist. The ideal mechanism is that if the user deletes the original post, the quoted content should also be deleted.
In MOST forum contexts: no way!
Seriously, that would break the fundemental context of a forum. Especially in all areas that follow the GDPR types of privacy law. (Since you are allowed and recomended to delete all your data, if you leave a service). IĀ“m willing to accept there are some areas for forums that mimic SoMe, where this makes sense, but most forums are content- and conversations oriented, and nonone should be able to one-sided sensor a community.
This is a Fedi problem, and need a tailored Fedi solution.
-
Could it be that the idea that quoted posts on forums are not rich resources (and thus liable for deletion) are an artifact of an older age of the internet, but at the same time is a feature, not a bug?
100% agreed that in a forum context the ability to quote the text of a post is important. Forum users often extend this in many ways, not limited to:
- Holding a user accountable (by preserving their words from future editing)
- Emphasis of certain portions of text
- Excision of unrelated portions of text
Simply displaying the quoted post as a linked resource robs the end user of all that additional functionality, and that is something I am not sure I want to concede.
-
An interesting hybrid version I'm a bit unsure of the technical issues connected to, is offering two seperate parts : the blockquoted text and a signature with a link.
If the resource still exist, give a link back to it, scoping the source, if it has been deleted, delete the link and any reference to source.
It means that we will have quotes that you can't doublecheck the context of. But by simply stripping the text of it original context, you drop it in the context of the post of the blockquote.
The Implementation issues with this model though....
-
This is one of those things where it is a culture clash.
Forums are designed for discussions, and that includes quoting what was said. The quotes are purposefully kept intact in case someone else deletes their post and falsely claimed they didn't say that. Whereas micro-blogging platforms like Mastodon are not designed for discussions, and users tend to call anyone that replies to their post a #replyguy and hate being quoted.
Forums and Facebook-style platforms can make these changes to accommodate quotes that can be deleted by the person who was quoted. But the bigger issue is a cultural one. If a person can delete their quote, forum users will purposefully quote them in a manner that cannot be deleted, even if it means just copy and pasting the text, because forums have a culture of holding people accountable for what they post.
I am not sure how you will resolve this cultural issue with technology. There are too many ways to bypass it. -
One thing that would help is if users could tell if they were replying to a forum or not. Because the rules & culture regarding forums are different than the rules & culture on micro-blogging platforms. But most platforms do not indicate this to their users.
-
Marcus Rohrmoser š»replied to Scott M. Stolz last edited by
Hi @scott,
indeed, #conversation_welcome or #one_way_sermon badges might help, too. -
Scott M. Stolzreplied to Marcus Rohrmoser š» last edited by@Marcus Rohrmoser
Some platforms, like Hubzilla, actually tell you that the thread (conversation) you are commenting on is from a forum. It helps provide context and also lets you know your post will be distributed to forum members in addition to your own followers.
-
@[email protected] @Christian-Stange @[email protected] I think I disagree that a conversation need mark that it is a "forum". It explicitly flags that the thread is different from microblogging, but why shouldn't microblogs mark their conversations instead (I ask purely to play devil's advocate because it isn't feasible nor realistic)?
Especially in this case when you yourself said it's a cultural problem (
agreed btw), the distinction is especially meaningless to the end user, who doesn't give two cents whether they're replying to a microblog or not. -
@[email protected] it's a cognitive dissonance that demands that their content be given the absolute maximum reach with the absolute minimum of repercussions.
-
@julian It's interesting how different platforms implement things. Some platforms, like Friendica, tell you which platform someone is using by showing a little icon next to their name on all of their posts (Mastodon icon, Hubzilla icon, potentially a NodeBB icon, etc.), whereas Mastodon makes it appear as if everyone is on Mastodon. Some Mastodon users are not even aware that they are talking to people on other platforms.
The reason why I say indicating that it is a forum or group discussion is useful is not just the cultural issue, but also because replies to forum posts are distributed differently than a normal post. You are not just replying to your followers and the person who posted, but also to everyone following the forum (or forum category).
But, this is something that is nice to have, and not needed. It just is useful information to have. And I doubt that platforms like Mastodon will make such a change anyway.
It's also interesting to see how platforms that pre-date Mastodon implement things versus platforms that came later and are influenced by Mastodon. -
@[email protected] I think it's a neat thing to show the software icon next to a post.
... but at the same time, think about who you want to use your software. Software geeks? Totally on board with that.
... but everyday people won't know what they're even looking at, and this (among other items people constantly bring up re: explaining ActivityPub) is all stuff that should be abstracted away from the end user.
It's not a matter of "before Mastodon" and "after Mastodon", at all.
-
@julian
It's not a matter of "before Mastodon" and "after Mastodon", at all.
I was trying not to state this so bluntly, but basically, platforms that came before Mastodon has blockquotes before Mastodon existed. We did not get rid of them in 2016, and we aren't getting rid of them now.
So, even if you implement this proposed feature, which is your right, some platforms will stay with the tried and true blockquotes. -
@julian By the way, edits don't appear to be appearing on NodeBB. I fixed a typo, but NodeBB still displays it.
-
@julian Or, to put it more diplomatically and to give a little context, this argument over blockquotes has been going on for about 8 years now. I don't think everyone is going to be on board with a single solution.
-
@[email protected] at it's core quote posts and block quotes are separate constructs. I have no plans to disallow users from making block quotes (not to mention there's no way I can even do that).
-
@[email protected] FYI I just tested editing against activitypub.academy, with successful results.
-
@julian I don't think that will matter. People who want a quote that cannot be deleted with figure that out and will pick the method that makes the quote undeletable. It seems like a lot of work for something that people will simply bypass.
-
@julian To be fair, platforms that don't have quote posts might be interested in this, since they can offer quote posts without the risk.
