4 ms·

bluesky currently doesn't support private profiles, so that's a no-go. while i fundamentally agree with what you're saying, the cases where a quote-skeet conta

bluesky currently doesn't support private profiles, so that's a no-go. while i fundamentally agree with what you're saying, the cases where a quote-skeet contains a polite or well-intentioned correction vs. is explicitly designed to enrage the quoter's follower-base and dunk on that person are way out of balance. there are many people who will, rather than attempt to correct a misunderstanding (or simply ignore an opinion they don't agree with,) immediately jump to quote-tweeting and dunking on someone, trying to drag their followers into a dogpile. it's often just blatantly unnecessary and it is frequently a miserable experience to be on the receiving end of that. i worry i'm coming across as lamenting cancel culture or something - i'm not - but i've absolutely had cases where someone with a different flavor of an opinion i agree with will see something i said, take my slightly different view on it, and quote skeet it with some nasty comment tearing into me. their friends, with no context of the discussion i was initially having, will just dive in and tear into me because they are clearly having fun doing it, not because it's actually correcting a problem or resolving a misunderstanding. i frequently have this happen from completely random passers-by to whom i wasn't speaking and who really would have no reason to see my post in the first place. i'm really not a controversial poster on bluesky, either. i really don't think i'm saying anything particularly offensive or earth-shattering. it's just a dumping ground for shower thoughts, mostly. great example of this is some guy who randomly found a post i made about the fact that i was disappointed in joe biden's debate performance, which i'd say is a pretty uncontroversial opinion. he said some nasty stuff, i made the mistake of responding trying to explain myself, and then he just started replying to me exclusively in quote-skeets, berating me and mocking me, and the gaggle of idiots following him just dove on in and also decided to tear in to me for reasons that still don't make a whole lot of sense. all this to say, if you've had any meaningful interaction with folks on these platforms, i feel like you understand the idealized version of a quote post and how far it is from how it's most frequently used.

Kye 2y ago
Another real world example: A famous comedian once grossly misunderstood something I said, quote tweeted it with a framing based on that, and sent tens of thousands of views, hundreds of replies, and thousands of notifications my way over the course of a few minutes. All extremely hostile. It can go well: SwiftOnSecurity once QTd me and their comment led to lots of good conversation on the quote and in my own notifications. But they cultivate a good community of followers and understand the responsibility they hold with a 6 digit follower count. The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter. An innocent mistake can be as harmful here as malice because, as I experienced, no amount of trying to address the mis-representation to people coming at me helped because I was just some nobody and someone they trusted told them what's what.
- bangaroo 2y ago
  You put it a lot more succinctly than I did: > The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter. There have been plenty of circumstances online where I was, in fact, the fool. I've had many interactions where I benefitted from being corrected. Almost universally, these corrections came in the form of a reply or private discussion designed to engage me specifically and not in a performative manner, and I found them very helpful. I see less value to someone having the right (or perceived duty) to amplify my meager reach while correcting me in front of people who don't know me and who lack any empathy for me. I don't see the difference between this and someone, during a conversation in a bar, standing up on the bartop and yelling HEY EVERYONE, CHECK OUT WHAT THIS GUY JUST SAID! and then loudly correcting me while egging everyone else on. I have questions about the impact of this feature on more famous figures - for example, I'm not sure I'd want a politician to employ this functionality against me. There is some balance that likely needs to be struck that takes into account the reach and impact of the original message and thus the potential for damage. They seem to be touching on that with the future community notes feature. I can see why that's a more appealing approach. That allows the opportunity for correction/response while not actively promoting the thing that's being responded to - just providing context when people come across the post organically.
  - Kye 2y ago
    I've had two pull-aside moments exactly like this on social media! They changed me for the better. The pull out and up of a quote never had that effect even if that's the stated intent of its most ardent defenders.

Kye 2y ago

Another real world example: A famous comedian once grossly misunderstood something I said, quote tweeted it with a framing based on that, and sent tens of thousands of views, hundreds of replies, and thousands of notifications my way over the course of a few minutes. All extremely hostile. It can go well: SwiftOnSecurity once QTd me and their comment led to lots of good conversation on the quote and in my own notifications. But they cultivate a good community of followers and understand the responsibility they hold with a 6 digit follower count. The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter. An innocent mistake can be as harmful here as malice because, as I experienced, no amount of trying to address the mis-representation to people coming at me helped because I was just some nobody and someone they trusted told them what's what.

bangaroo 2y ago
You put it a lot more succinctly than I did: > The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter. There have been plenty of circumstances online where I was, in fact, the fool. I've had many interactions where I benefitted from being corrected. Almost universally, these corrections came in the form of a reply or private discussion designed to engage me specifically and not in a performative manner, and I found them very helpful. I see less value to someone having the right (or perceived duty) to amplify my meager reach while correcting me in front of people who don't know me and who lack any empathy for me. I don't see the difference between this and someone, during a conversation in a bar, standing up on the bartop and yelling HEY EVERYONE, CHECK OUT WHAT THIS GUY JUST SAID! and then loudly correcting me while egging everyone else on. I have questions about the impact of this feature on more famous figures - for example, I'm not sure I'd want a politician to employ this functionality against me. There is some balance that likely needs to be struck that takes into account the reach and impact of the original message and thus the potential for damage. They seem to be touching on that with the future community notes feature. I can see why that's a more appealing approach. That allows the opportunity for correction/response while not actively promoting the thing that's being responded to - just providing context when people come across the post organically.
- Kye 2y ago
  I've had two pull-aside moments exactly like this on social media! They changed me for the better. The pull out and up of a quote never had that effect even if that's the stated intent of its most ardent defenders.