Back on twitter a perennial debate topic of Great Concern was: "Editing Tweets" -- the consensus? everyone wanted to edit tweets. When the masses would cry out "let us edit!" -- Sober explainer-guys would pop up and explain that there were, in fact, Very Good and Wise Reasons(tm) why Lord Jack did not allow such things. "You, see tweets are like a blockchain..." an explainer guy explained to me once. (My eyes glazed over & I cannot recall the rest of what he said.)
Anyways. How about those QTs?
If it was implemented like on Mastodon (notify anyone who favorited post about edits made), it would go fine with everything. Which I cannot say about QTs. So, like, opinion is reversed on this bastion.
Yeah, but the consensus on editing tweets was exactly what you suggest if not more cautious: notify and keep a record of the changes. (many of us liked the idea of only one edit being allowed and within 24hours only--)
But these reasonable restrictions that addressed the obvious concerns meant nothing.
Much like the idea of an "opt in" implementation where no one can QT your stuff unless you opt in first seems to mean nothing here.
It was just some abstract Jack/Jack fan thing.
Ah, right. The spectrum of solutions.
I pretty much like how edit mechanics are implemented in #Matrix - use CRDTs to ensure that each edit isn't missed and even provide a diff view to compare edits. Something similar can be seen in #GitHub issue comments as well.
QTs can be brought to Mastodon without serious repercussions and missing out, if such details as opting in are taken into account.
I think "opting in" is essential. Both because it's not fair to just force the feature on people who don't expect it, but it also short circuits the most common methods of abuse.
Twitter should have done this. But twitter didn't really care about such things.
@futurebird
What does opting in mean? That each user explicitly turn in displaying QTs in their personal app? Otherwise you just see them as a link like currently?
@vintprox
It means the option to QT that post would be grayed out. Of course people could still post a link or a screenshot, (just like they can right now, there is no way to prevent this) but to do that they are explicitly sharing in a way the poster didn't want-- right now you don't know if sharing is against their wishes or not.
This would be the default for all posts when the feature is introduced and those who want our posts to be quoted could opt in.
@futurebird @nottrobin @vintprox would you be ok with instances removing accounts of people who used links or screenshots to QT a post that a person had opted out? That might be the comprimise that no-QT instances insist on to continue federating with those that allow it.
