josemanuel @josemanuel@qoto.org

@noyoushutthefuckupdad Merry Christmas, Dad.

@2ck A preview helps you decide whether you're interested in what the link says or not without having to click on it. It also makes sense of the QP right away. Not to mention that, at least in the web UI, the link would open in the quoted post's instance, effectively bypassing any visibility restrictions (i.e., blocks) they might have set up for you. This means that QPs actually increase security.

Actually, I don't always miss them. I caught Tanpopo and 1984.

Oh, come on! Why do I always miss the best movies?

@2ck T-that's your reasoning? One app doesn't implement something and that's why we shouldn't use it? Wouldn't it be better if you asked Tusky developers for that feature instead? It's not that hard. Pleroma, Misskey and its derivatives have had it for years. Qoto even uses Misskey's implementation internally. It's only Mastodon that falls behind because they're prudes who think everybody is evil but themselves.

Anyway, this is the link to the thread I posted in case you missed it: https://masto.ai/@stavvers/109565784138787138

@thor God jul!

@kapis Suscribirse sí (aunque no de la misma forma que uno se suscribiría desde aquí. Vamos, que no sube el contador, pero sí te llegan las actualizaciones); dar likes no.

@Danilo@masto.es @fediversetv

@trinsec Thanks, man.

If you can read this thread, can you please tell me what did I say that was so wrong that warranted a block from the other person?

It's an honest question. I really don't know. Thank you.

In the end, the oposition to QPs is based on two contradictory ideas: one is that Fediverse users are _not_ like Twitter users. (Remember the famous line, «Twitter without the nazis»?) We are caring and kind, and we wouldn't hurt a fly, while they are “awful, awful people.”

The other is that we have seen QPs on Twitter being used for evil, so we must ban them here too, as we (the best of the breed, free from any imperfection since birth) would use them in the same way because reasons.

@I_Choose_Exile@famichiki.jp Please enlighten me, for I still don't get it. You seem to have said several opposing things and all of them in jest.

@loke I fail to see how a study on Twitter users can be reflective of how Fedi users work.

Most Twitter use is politically and economically motivated (i.e., a lot of people are paid to tweet), which means that there is an incentive in QPs being dunks on the political adversaries. That incentive does not exist here, but all the positive aspects of QPing that I've mentioned in my recent posts are still there, though.

Why must we be forced to choose between living like digital Amish and spoiled teenage girls? Can't we just act as rational adults and not think of stabbing someone when we're handed a knife?

If I can do that, being the piece of shit that I am, then you can, too.

@I_Choose_Exile@famichiki.jp Sub-toots can be seen (at least by me, I don't know about others) as passive-aggressive. If what you're saying can be said to the other person's face, then mention them; if it can't, then just don't say it.

Also, a sub-toot, by its very nature, doesn't add context, which is not ideal for having informed conversations.

In this case, we both know the context, but maybe other people won't and then they will only have your side of the story, which is not good either.

One of the reasons why I think QPs are useful is that they create a new thread. That means you can take the conversation in a different direction without derailing the original one.

I usually use a QP when I want to point out an idea inspired by the original thread, or that it reminded me of, but not strictly related to it.

Another use case is the one in this thread: recommending that you read the other one and letting you know why I think it's interesting instead of just throwing it onto your TL.

My point is that QPs are not responsible for the use shit people make of them. The problem is shit people, and you deal with them by muting and blocking, not by banning a useful communication tool. (By the way, lately I found blocking to be a better alternative with the ex-Twitter crowd: muting is for people I don't want to read; blocking is for people I don't want to be reading _me_.)

I must admit that she almost convinced me by saying that, but my love for QPs is too strong. Anyway, read her thread. It's pretty enlightening.

The other day I thought about how relationships in Heian Japan were pretty similar to those in today's Internet. Or, in general, to those in any finite group (a fandom, for example).

What they used to do back then was to write poems to each other. There was aesthetic value in the physical message being sent (the paper, its quality and colour, the caligraphy, the objects attached...), but the important part to this discussion was that each poem would usually contain wordplay or some cleverly disguised literary allusion, the more obscure, the better. The recipient was expected to understand the allusion and reply accordingly.

That's pretty much the same as us replying to someone with some variant of a meme or a quote from a movie, videogame or series. I bet we all picture the other person nodding approvingly and thinking: “Ah, I see you're a man of culture as well.”

@lisaqutob Probably on Pleroma. I see a lot of that there.

@wrrrdnrrrdgrrrl

@Javisandom «¡Qué escándalo! ¡Acabo de descubrir que aquí se juega!»

@TechUr And a friend, I hope.