@gargron Saw a somewhat charming approach some days ago. Instead of embedding the other post, the original post was shown prior in the feed, and the „quoting post“ as a response. This way it is possible to refere to another post in a direct way, but the initial post is still prioritized. This could be a good compromise from my view.

In this case this was a solution on the App side, which just worked when reply and boost were in the same timeframe.

@Gargron I can guarantee that those complaining there isn’t a QT feature will not be happy if they’re not able to QT because that person had opted out.

But 100% agree that we should be able to opt out. I expect most people will be switching it off.

@Gargron, that might be an essential part. Since the unconsenting viral post through a QT can be rather damning for individuals. As in, you are going viral since somebody used "a QT on you."

@Gargron Thanks for looking at this, I'd like to have it, but also agree with concerns about it being a vector for dog-piling.

Its a complicated one, we can link toots now, but quoting definitely changes all the human behavior around it.

Maybe also let instances enable/disable posting quote toots, and enable/disable if the quote is shown or just a link?

@Gargron The negative effects of enabling this will far outweigh the positive.

@Gargron Please consider using opt-in as a default approach rather than opt-out. It is so much cleaner for new people to first understand what the ramifications of certain features are before opting in, than having a laundry list for new people where you say "quick turn of search engine indexing, quoting, this that and the next thing". Opt-out makes onboarding more daunting, and it is used so cynically on commercial offerings to extract value.

@Gargron Sounds like a fair compromise to me. Thank you.

@Gargron QTs strip context. If we do QTs, they should probably note whether quote is part of thread or discussion.

The goal should be to show the right amount of info to emphasize that the reader should look further and not simply take the most immediately quoted toot at face value.

@Gargron Shouldn't notification by quote be opt-in rather than opt-out? I've once seen a screenshot by a victim who was bullied through a QT on Twitter by someone who the victim doesn't know. The first notification seemed to be enough to make a big damage to the victim.

@Gargron sounds like a very great way to implement it. I appreciate!

@Gargron that sounds perfect

@Gargron Are you really trying to rebuild sick Twitter here?

@Gargron it’d be great being able to opt-out it on account-level, as well as post-per-post basis

@Gargron I'm glad there's some nuance in the implementation.

@Gargron How about this for QuoteToots?

By default only posts with hashtags can be quoted (after all, they are intended to be fairly public).

Accounts can change to AlwaysAllow if they are, for instance, a news or campaign organisation or just want their Mastodon experience to be more public.

Accounts can change to AlwaysBlock if they are concerned about abuse or wish their Mastodon experience to be more intimate.

#QuoteTweet #QuoteToot #QuotePost #Mastodon

@Gargron great 👍🏼

@Gargron cool, hope you find a way to do this

@Gargron that sounds great!

@Gargron I haven't worked out how to design quote tweet in such a way to address the @malwaretech concern about quote tweet being used to amplify bad faith actors. Tough problem..

https://infosec.exchange/@malwaretech/109412063120139100

@Gargron I'm fine like this, but in case you will change your mind, would you please consider the option of a feature enabling admins to disable quote replies at instance level? This will allow to remove at local level a potentially toxic feature whose absence was wisely enforced by design up to now. Thanks!