josemanuel @josemanuel@qoto.org

That's funny. I just used this same quote in another post.

Something tells me that people fav my anti-fav posts sarcastically. It's ok, I don't mind... But some day, _when you least expect it_, I'll fav one of your posts, too, and I'll do it ironically. (Or onirically, which is what I'd typed at first.)

No, I didn't fav your post. I'm too busy writing a reply to it, because I think you and your post deserve that I use a bit of my time to tell you that I appreciate it or (most likely) that it stinks in a way that won't offend you, because I respect you as a fellow human being and I believe you have value, even though what you said was probably bullshit.

Cagar es la forma que tiene tu cuerpo de darte su opinión sobre lo que comes.

You know what? If you really think about it, favs serve no useful purpose on Fedi. They don't have any real meaning or significance. Emoji reactions make much more sense, because they both serve as an acknowledgement and a meaningful response. Any bot can fav your posts, but only a human can react appropriately to them.

Mastodon is really lagging behind other platforms as a useful means of communication between people.

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

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

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.

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.

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.”

“Content creators” is just a generic term for artists, essayists, filmmakers, authors, photographers and many more professions. I don't particularly like it either, but I'm not going to give you a list when I have a simple term to refer to all of them.

There are real issues in the world to be pissed about. This is _not_ one of them.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the Fediverse seems like a great foundation on which to build a sustainable Internet economy.

Think about it: the Fediverse encourages self-hosting, so a hosting company specialised on Fedi software and hardware needs could be profitable. I know there's already at least one project like this.

What about #PeerTube? Authors in the same area or with similar creative itches could set an instance up, share costs and monetise it with donations or sponsorships. Same could be done with #Funkwhale for podcasts.

Microblogging and blogging platforms can be used to publicise and discuss such projects.

Every step of the supply chain can be independently funded and managed without external interference from BigTech companies.