Like it or not, @gargron is right. Showing vulnerability is easier when people literally can’t quote-post anything you say to throw people at you. And that design visibly shapes communities and heals people


@matilde @gargron I agree! One of the first things I realized upon moving to Mastodon was what a mistake "retweet with comment" was. Not only can it be used to make fun of people, it also encourages rebroadcasting things you disagree with...which is so backwards when you think about it...!

The thing that was getting me down the most on birdsite, I think, was good people retweeting harmful things, even if it was to complain about it.

@Lexi @matilde @Gargron I think opposite, from my point of view it's one of the best Twitter features and I miss it a lot on Mastodon. It allows you to react and be visible in the timeline at the same time. To achieve it on Mastodon you have to reply and boost your own toot, which looks desperate.

@Mac_CZ @Lexi @matilde @Gargron Perhaps we should be less concerned with appearances and visibility... not all reactions need to be public, either. The existence of the feature encourages exactly those bad behaviors you just described.

@trwnh @Lexi @matilde @Gargron From my point of view it's not bad behavior, so it's good to encourage it. As with everything: If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't take away the possibility from the others. That's evil behavior.

@Mac_CZ @trwnh @Lexi @gargron I’ve described how this design avoids the incentive to hurt others on purpose. You haven’t addressed this at all beyond “well I don’t think that, and moreover, any purposeful design is evil!”

@matilde @trwnh @Lexi @Gargron It doesn't prevent anything, it's still possible to do screenshot and post it with comment. If somebody feels hurt by some post (which seems bit childish), there are standard ways, like block.

@Mac_CZ @matilde @trwnh @gargron If it's childish to be hurt by a post, why does Mastodon have content warnings? :blobmelt:

@Lexi @matilde @trwnh @Gargron I don't know, seems like completely useless annoyance. Probably to force you to buy new mouse, when you destroy the old one with pointless clicking to every CW post.

@Mac_CZ @matilde @trwnh @gargron I think I'd feel a little selfish if I said, "I'm not affected by [X], so I'm not going to use a content warning for [X]."

@Lexi @Gargron @matilde This is actually one of the things I *miss* from Twitter. Not because I think any of the problems you address don't exist, but sometimes, I very badly want to add a personal observation. I think it's a very human thing to want. No one ever shares a story verbatim without adding a personal touch to it. If someone has written a joke, it can sometimes be enhanced by the next person. There are many scenarios where it's not harmful to have such a feature.

@thor @matilde @gargron Good point. I'm not sure it's worth it for the bad it can bring, but others might feel differently. Heck, if it had a content warning each time (maybe optionally, like the "mark all images as sensitive" option), I probably wouldn't mind as much.

@codesections @Gargron @matilde @Lexi I feel it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I want some means of sharing a toot while also sharing the reply I wrote to it. People don't bother to tap an out-of-context toot to see what I was replying to (too much hassle if you're just scrolling through your feed), so I need a way of putting a part of a thread on their screen.

@Lexi @matilde @Gargron An excellent point about how very small affordances and dynamics can be hugely significant.

@matilde @Gargron I'd like to object to that: Rebroadcasting things you disagree with in a framed way is important for discussing/ pointing out things you find wrong with an explanation to your followers.
There are some things I don't discuss with the original posters (e.g. I don't discuss with nazis), but I still want to educate people about their manipulative arguments or lies.

Even more important, criticism and the object of critics are a single unit.

@matilde @Gargron It's probably another use case. I just wanted to point out that CommentRT doesn't only have downsides. One can weigh the different consequences of that feature against each other and then decide for being better of without it, though.

@schmittlauch @gargron No, what I'm saying is that the use case you describe is literally one that enables abuse. To frame someone's message and make a public example of them is not acceptable and needs to be unlearned

@matilde @Gargron I guess you can't really prevent that. IMHO that feature was ann attempt to prevent people from posting screenshots of tweets, which is also an antipattern.

How should I deal with the described posts then? I see that the possibility of commenting a post publicly *enables* abuse, but in the end it matters of *how* stuff is commented to make it abuse or not. Furthermore, I'd prefer to "that thing @ foo did is bad" instead of "@ foo is bad (as a whole/ as a person)"

@Lexi @matilde @Gargron Absofuckinglutely. In order to engage using words, you have to REPLY. You can't just dump something on only your page where all your followers can see it and attack.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!