Note that I said “quoted posts”, not “quote posts”, don’t @ me!
After the last WG meeting @[email protected] @[email protected] and I chatted a bit about how NodeBB handles quoted posts, but also in relation to quote posts. I thought that it was an interesting chat that merited further discussion; also because some of it was over my head.
When asked how NodeBB handles blockquotes specifically, I replied that blockquotes themselves are rather simple. We set a copy of the text wrapped in <blockquote>.
The rationale is simple: forums typically represent content in a linear fashion, and quoted posts are a handy way to reinforce subcontext within a topic. A typical topic/thread could have many separate discussions all happening together (aka thread drift), so quotes help others know what you’re responding to. We don’t have special handling or references to our blockquotes because there is a history in forums of edited blockquotes.
Perhaps you want to have a block quote and add some emphasis?
It’s also better netiquette (god, that term is old) to trim down the quote to only the relevant parts.
Another upside is that a copy-paste of a post preserves that post to history. That can be useful if the quoted user tries to edit their post later, etc.
vis-a-vis the concept of “quote posts”, which I take to mean an embedded post within a post, allowing for replies, likes, etc. How that is represented via ActivityPub is probably detailed in some FEP, but NodeBB doesn’t implement that yet. It’s a more complicated mechanism that requires a lot more thinking through, and to be honest, we haven’t had the need for that in the 10+ years we’ve been building NodeBB.
@julian Or, to put it more diplomatically and to give a little context, this argument over blockquotes has been going on for about 8 years now. I don’t think everyone is going to be on board with a single solution.
@[email protected] at it’s core quote posts and block quotes are separate constructs. I have no plans to disallow users from making block quotes (not to mention there’s no way I can even do that).
@julian Sorry if I was a bit salty earlier and I didn’t want to rain on anyone’s parade.
There are many benefits to this proposed variation of quote posts where the person being quoted can update or delete their quote.
Let me argue the other side then.
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.
Malicious use can be mitigated in the UI by indicating the quoted person changed their post and providing a history of changes. Some platforms already do this for regular posts.
The quoted person being able to delete their quote raises some unique philosophical questions, like whether a politician can delete something they said from a journalist’s quote post. Or where someone intentionally changes their post in a malicious manner, which alters the quote post and makes the person quoting someone else look bad.
So, there are many facets to this proposal. It still may be good to pursue even if some platforms aren’t going to implement it. But there are also some scenarios we want to consider.
@julian To be fair, platforms that don’t have quote posts might be interested in this, since they can offer quote posts without the risk.
@julian I don’t think that will matter. People who want a quote that cannot be deleted with figure that out and will pick the method that makes the quote undeletable. It seems like a lot of work for something that people will simply bypass.