question mainly to proponents of quote posts, but anyone can respond:
-
@tech_himbo well sure, but that’s “meaning” in a functional sense as tou point out. like intention.
“semantics” here is descriptive. it asks “what is the nature of the relationship between the current thing and the linked thing”. if viewing a “quote post” in isolation, can we represent it through a combination of existing properties, or does it deserve its own new property?
we have `context`, inReplyTo`, `to` or `cc` or `audience`, even `tag` or `attachment`, and so on. can we just use these?
-
the car lane disrespecterreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
@trwnh the relationship between a quoted post and the one that quotes it is that of a dunk and a dunkee. a strawman and the argument that shreds it. a screencap and the accompanying roast text.
its purpose is to elevate the quoter literally above the quoted and profit off the difference.I fuckin' hate quote shit
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Peter Toft Jølving last edited by
@joelving i’m trying to do protocol stuff, even knowledge modeling.
we have context, audience, to, cc, inReplyTo, tag, attachment — do we need quote/quoteOf?
-
Григорий Клюшниковreplied to infinite love ⴳ last edited by
To me, in Smithereen, it's a link preview that's getting some special treatment and that you create with a dedicated UI. The difference between quotes and link previews is that I don't do link previews yet. The semantic relationship is the same as when I link something in my own post. To quote something means to include it as part of your own post, possibly adding your own comment, to have a conversation about it with your followers.
-
@trwnh @darius In practical terms, I think the most important implication of that is that when I tap on it, my client should open it as a post, not a webpage. Also, embedded media should be live.
There are open UI questions about whether other things about the quoted post should be inherited by the parent, things like content warnings (probably) and @ mentions (probably not), but those all depend on semantically understanding that the thing is a post to start with.
-
@trwnh @darius I think the difference between a quote post and a simple link preview is that I expect the quote post to be more “live“. I think from a semantic perspective that means that whatever software is doing the reading understand that it is a post. I think (but I am not certain) that was missing right now, semantically, is about the post part, not the quoting per se.
-
@trwnh No, not always.
For instance, let's say a podcast makes a post about their new episode. I loved the episode so I want to share it to my followers.
I could just boost if, but instead I "quote post", adding: "whoa, great new episode of this podcast. I've you've ever been curious to check the show out this would be a good one to start with."
I would not consider that a "response" because it's not addressing the original poster
-
@trwnh For me, it’s exactly what it’s called: a quote. If I’m quoting someone else’s post, the relationship is closer to “quoting + citing the source”, but if I’m quoting my own post, the relationship is “quoting = highlighting a specific previous statement, e.g. as a follow-up”.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to DJ Sundog - from the toot-lab last edited by
@djsundog so is it enough to change the `context`, or is there something else missing?
-
@trwnh the quote post is a commentary/reaction/repost+. A Quote-post only makes sense if the post you're quoting itself is necessary for your post to make sense. The relationship is important (otherwise a screenshot would work) it's kind of a reply that wants to either address a different audience, wants to shift the conversation to a different aspect of the original discourse etc.
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: last edited by
@lanodan @erincandescent so is it basically `inReplyTo` but setting a different `context`
-
@trwnh is the relationship between a thing i wrote and another thing to which it’s related not a function of my intentions? like, if i “boost” a post, without any other context, that act has a pretty limited meaning; it’s essentially broadcasting. but if i “endorse” a post, the act of endorsing rather than simply boosting conveys a distinct relationship between my action and that post; it’s distinct because endorsement means something very specific
-
@erincandescent that is indeed how i see it in most cases. in as2 we can probably reply in a different context
-
@trwnh @djsundog I am not sold on the idea that changing `context` in the encoded data actually does anything other than provide a hint to clients that "something ineffable has changed, do what thou wilt". I think changing `context` is necessary but not sufficient. HOWEVER, I am open to the possibility that the real work is on implementations to rigorously consider what `context` is and how it should inform their logic and rendering
-
@Craigp so is it just setting a different `context` or is there more to it?
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to the car lane disrespecter last edited by
@t54r4n1 i don’t like it either but i am trying to describe the general case where no one is dunking and the quoter is actually below the quote.
to the extent that such a thing exists, anyway
-
infinite love ⴳreplied to Григорий Клюшников last edited by
@grishka so it’s just a link then? possibly a sort of attachment?
-
-
DJ Sundog - from the toot-labreplied to Darius Kazemi last edited by
@darius @trwnh I agree! it'd be one thing if the systems involved defined the constituent parts of a context, so that there'd be value in possibly providing a link to the original context, but I'm pretty sure that's not a thing here (yet?) so it's definitely not sufficient in and of itself. I personally don't think "quote post" is anything more than "link to thing I guarantee is an activitypub object rather than some other type of web content", and I'd prefer to see the fediverse move to rendering embedded references to other fediverse content inline, but that it should be all client rendering decisions ultimately anyway, I think.
-
@tom the quirk here is that you can respond to something without addressing the author of the thing you’re responding to. response, audience, context are all on a separate axis
the open question is how to link to the “thing being quoted”. an existing property, or a new property? if a new property, how do we define that new property clearly?
“A is related to B where A isQuoteOf B” raises the immediate question of what “isQuoteOf” is supposed to mean precisely.
