Currently lemmy is like the speedboat next to the heavy steam boat of Mastodon etc. While lemmy is still dynamic and flexible and can introduce new features easily without scaring off its established user base, mastodon can not do such experiments so easily. Now, if lemmy gains more momentum in the fediverse and establishes features, which other services don’t have, it could really push innovation in the Fediverse further. What do you think?

  • Dame English
    1·
    1 year ago

    What was your reasons for agreeing with that assessment? It wasn’t just used for negativity. All of these are tools and they can be misused. Having a social media account in general opens people up for harassment

    • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
      41·
      1 year ago

      I think what he said is correct:

      Another feature that has been requested almost since the start, and which I keep rejecting is quoting messages. Coming back to my disclaimer, of course it’s impossible to prevent people from sharing screenshots or linking to public resources, but quoting messages is immediately actionable. It makes it a lot easier for people to immediately engage with the quoted content… and it usually doesn’t lead to anything good. When people use quotes to reply to other people, conversations become performative power plays. “Heed, my followers, how I dunk on this fool!” When you use the reply function, your message is broadcast only to people who happen to follow you both. It means one person’s follower count doesn’t play a massive role in the conversation. A quote, on the other hand, very often invites the followers to join in on the conversation, and whoever has got more of them ends up having the upper hand and massively stressing out the other person.

      From github quoting a blog entry.

      You can read the conversation there and most of what people who are against the feature said, I agree with. It encourages bad behavior, simplifies talking about somebody “behind their back”, and just copies a feature used primarily to dogpile onto people the quoter disagrees with.

      • Dame English
        1·
        1 year ago

        I have read it and I can understand but it doesn’t encourage bad behaviour. It’s a tool, it will be used how people decide to use it. I also believe most of the concerns are disingenuous as there’s plenty of abuse that has happened and still has happened on Mastodon. Have you and those that agreed advocated for the abolishment of PM? That is significantly worse than QTs and search. That’s the primary vector of harm. What’s worse is that it’s hidden. Black users have been harassed via PMs

        • onlinepersona@programming.devEnglish
          11·
          1 year ago

          It’s a tool, it will be used how people decide to use it.

          That’s like saying a gun is just a tool. I know it’s hyperbole and it’s done explicitly to bring the point across that a tool isn’t just always a tool.

          We don’t see eye to eye on this 🤷

          • Dame English
            11·
            1 year ago

            That’s nowhere near the same and disingenuous. A gun was made to cause damage, irrespective of the reason for sad damage. Thus it’s not the same. Quotes, full text search were not designed to cause damage. That is misuse. That’s fine, we can disagree. You neglected to respond about private mention though and I think that’s telling