Fediverse

The design flaw with "Quote Tweets" is right there in the name, but not where you think it is. Is it not the "Quote" part, but the "Tweets" part. Twitter inherently works differently than the services in the Fediverse.

The design flaw of Twitter is its algorithm combined with that it is advertising driven. An algorithm that benefits from people interacting with posts. An algorithm that repeatedly pushes controversial things in front of as many eyeballs as possible, to create even more interaction. If you didn't (re-) act the first time, it keeps doing it. It does that because it means more eyeballs watching ads too. That is what they sell.

Mastodon and the Fediverse does not have an algorithm nor do they have ads. Here a post, regardless of content, gets its slot in the chronological timeline and...well, that's it.

To be able to quote on the other hand has been a feature of many different platforms/services for tens of years. It is one tool of many to enrich a dialogue, to make a point or to reinforce an argument with external facts etc. It has been used for years without the Twitter-like abuse, because unlike Twitter most services/platforms do not have an algorithm infested at its core, just users who wish to interact in the most sociable and simple way possible.

Further to that, in none of the Fediverse services that, as pointed out earlier in the thread, has quote capability does it work like it does on Twitter. Why? Because people here decided to do it "right". Here a quote isn't about someone who isn't informed of that you've quoted them. In fact, depending on their notification settings they can see if someone has quoted them just as easily as they can see if someone has replied to their post. They can keep an eye on their own post, even interact with more/new users that get to see the original, if they wish. The original poster still has control.

Currently that doesn't work on Mastodon though. On Mastodon people still quote others, it isn't like it isn't happening already today. They are sadly forced to "hack" their way around it in an ugly way that

a) Doesn't have to involve the original poster at all, or send a notification to a user that someone has quoted them, and that there now is a discussion about their post "over there". The creator of the original post has absolutely no control.

b) Is really quite bad for accessibility (turning text into images for example is very rarely a great thing)

EDIT: correcting spelling