Quotes are controversial because Twitter people used it to foster toxicity. However, on Mastodon, we have actually active mods. Ideally, you should be self-hosting your own instance anyways and be your own mod.
Also, it seems very well implemented, much better than on Twitter: Mastodon says it will allow users to control whether their posts can be quoted. Also, users will be notified if someone quotes them, and they’ll be able to withdraw their post from the quoted context at any time.
Most importantly, Mastodon has an active developer who responds to feedback, and PULL REQUESTS, ISSUE TRACKERS, AND GITHUB DISCUSSIONS exist!
If you still completely disagree with this decision, fork the project, create a patch, and start your own server with the patched Mastodon!

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Good. I get why they were originally resistant to it, but fringe, outlier situations can be dealt with when you have actual mods maintaining things. The reason quote-retweeting was used so heavily for bullying on Twitter was because there were no repercussions for it, and Twitter never enforced their bullying rules for the practice. Mastodon instances have their own mods enforcing their own rules, to a much better degree than Twitter ever has. While the potential for bullying still exists, it's far easier to mitigate on Mastodon.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Aren't Mastodon instances maintained by volunteers in their spare time? I can't imagine how they manage to continue moderating it once there are ten thousand or millions of users on it. At least the moderators on Twitter were paid. It was their job. I think people massively underestimate how much work this is.

[–] Waryle@jlai.lu 1 points 2 months ago

Most instances will stop allowing new accounts to be created when it reaches a certain size that gets difficult to manage (hardware and moderating-wise). They self-regulate that way, and instances that get out of control will just be defederated by the others.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm so confused. How would quoting someone's words bully them? Maybe I'm not getting something. You're talking like I say something on mastodon, you quote what I said, with me attributed to the quote, and that bullys me? Or am I missing something? I feel like I'm missing something.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

(This is an example.)

Get a load of this idiot! They can't imagine how quoting someone can be bullying!

collapsed inline media

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Submit feedback and pull requests to improve the feature to make it much less controversial.

[–] scripthook@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s a good feature that’s only controversial because it was used on a shitty platform

[–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It was part of what made the platform shitty...

Anti Commercial-AI license

[–] GoodEye8@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

As others have already pointed out, you can literally get the same result by using images as quotes. People could've been shitty even without the quotation feature because it's not the feature on the platform that makes it shitty, it's the people on the platform who decide to use it for a shitty purpose.

Not implementing a feature because morons may abuse it is not justification for not implementing a feature. It's like saying we shouldn't be able to reply to comments because someone might use that feature to directly send you hateful comments. Now, if the features primary purpose is (or primary use case ends up being) to use it negatively, then sure it shouldn't be implemented. But I don't see how quotation falls under this exception. In my eyes quotation is a net positive.

It doesn't turn the platform shitty and if there are good moderators it also prevents assholes from trying to turn the platform shitty.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What's wrong with quote posts?

[–] breadcat@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

quote dunking I guess?

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If I infer from context clues, quote dunking is commenting disparagingly to frame the quoted tweet? I left Twitter in like 2011.

[–] Irelephant@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Quote dunking is "dunking" on people who are wrong, or have bad opinions through quote posts.

[–] Mars2k21@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

I'm shocked people are actually against Mastodon adding a common feature. Seems like one of the gripes with it for ages has been the lack of features and polish (I personally stopped using Mastodon in part because of this)

Glad they are going ahead with it...it doesn't really hurt anything and isn't any different than just screenshotting posts.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm glad they're adding it; I also hope that they take Bsky's ability to detach yourself from the quoted post too.

[–] xnx@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 months ago

They will have that it’s in the article

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Bluesky has a feature where you can stop someone from quoting your post if you don’t like what they are saying.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah, but how effective is it really?

collapsed inline media

[–] arunshah240@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago

Much needed feature