christian-stange

@[email protected] said in Quoted posts:

One big benefit of this proposed quote post methodology is that it would be a version that Mastodon, et. al. would probably be willing to support. They have valid concerns that people will abuse quote posts to harass others. This proposal mitigates that.

It also is useful in non-malicious contexts since people can fix typos and errors in their original post. It's also useful if the person being quoted wants to retract what they said, perhaps because they changed their mind on a topic or found new information.

Well, and Mastodon et. al. are free to implement it that way. There is of cause the limitation of the technical solution on the Forum side regarding editing or deleting; but Mastodon is free to implement it as links. In the same way as a Forum solution has to implement it as qoutes, because the context is different.

That means that if the forumpost actually becomes edited or deleted, Mastodon will delete it, because the link has disappeared, but if the Mastodon qoute disappears, the qoute stays in the forum, but the link back to source disappear so now it is just a statement witout a source.

An interesting hybrid version I'm a bit unsure of the technical issues connected to, is offering two seperate parts : the blockquoted text and a signature with a link.

If the resource still exist, give a link back to it, scoping the source, if it has been deleted, delete the link and any reference to source.

It means that we will have quotes that you can't doublecheck the context of. But by simply stripping the text of it original context, you drop it in the context of the post of the blockquote.

The Implementation issues with this model though....

@Panzz said in Quoted posts:

Quotes should involve resources. With the current citation mechanism, if the user deletes the original post, the quoted content will still exist. The ideal mechanism is that if the user deletes the original post, the quoted content should also be deleted.

In MOST forum contexts: no way!

Seriously, that would break the fundemental context of a forum. Especially in all areas that follow the GDPR types of privacy law. (Since you are allowed and recomended to delete all your data, if you leave a service). I´m willing to accept there are some areas for forums that mimic SoMe, where this makes sense, but most forums are content- and conversations oriented, and nonone should be able to one-sided sensor a community.

This is a Fedi problem, and need a tailored Fedi solution.

@[email protected] said in Quoted posts:

The ability to arbitrarily and retroactively remove all traces of yourself from a discussion you had in public, via a quasi-persistent medium has always felt to me like a violation of everyone else in the discussion, but I, too, come from the forum space, where you just don’t do that. The microblogging space doesn’t seem to care, and the microblogging space currently dominates fedi. It kind of feels like a culture clash to me, and one of many reasons why forum-fedi and masto-fedi probably don’t need a whole lot of cross-over.

This is a VERY interesting point, and I think it comes from the difference of context between forums and microblogging : A Forum always har a context and community : the message stand by itself, the user is secondary. Microblogging is more a way to communicate yourself ; the message is secondary.

Which makes the crossover a can of worms : A message from a forum published out of contex of the forum discussion to the Microverse, can be as bad as a miss-composed message being published as a forumpost.

On the other side, the value of fedi is in the ability to solve these kinds of context switches. It should be a part of HOW we do fedi.