@panzz I can see your updated username from Mastodon.

It’s interesting how NodeBB seems to be able to handle username changes just fine even through ActivityPub.

An interesting hybrid version I'm a bit unsure of the technical issues connected to, is offering two seperate parts : the blockquoted text and a signature with a link.

If the resource still exist, give a link back to it, scoping the source, if it has been deleted, delete the link and any reference to source.

It means that we will have quotes that you can't doublecheck the context of. But by simply stripping the text of it original context, you drop it in the context of the post of the blockquote.

The Implementation issues with this model though....

This is one of those things where it is a culture clash.

Forums are designed for discussions, and that includes quoting what was said. The quotes are purposefully kept intact in case someone else deletes their post and falsely claimed they didn't say that. Whereas micro-blogging platforms like Mastodon are not designed for discussions, and users tend to call anyone that replies to their post a #replyguy and hate being quoted.

Forums and Facebook-style platforms can make these changes to accommodate quotes that can be deleted by the person who was quoted. But the bigger issue is a cultural one. If a person can delete their quote, forum users will purposefully quote them in a manner that cannot be deleted, even if it means just copy and pasting the text, because forums have a culture of holding people accountable for what they post.

I am not sure how you will resolve this cultural issue with technology. There are too many ways to bypass it.

One thing that would help is if users could tell if they were replying to a forum or not. Because the rules & culture regarding forums are different than the rules & culture on micro-blogging platforms. But most platforms do not indicate this to their users.

Hi @scott,
indeed, #conversation_welcome or #one_way_sermon badges might help, too.

@Marcus Rohrmoser Some platforms, like Hubzilla, actually tell you that the thread (conversation) you are commenting on is from a forum. It helps provide context and also lets you know your post will be distributed to forum members in addition to your own followers.

@scott@loves.tech @Christian-Stange @mro@digitalcourage.social I think I disagree that a conversation need mark that it is a "forum". It explicitly flags that the thread is different from microblogging, but why shouldn't microblogs mark their conversations instead (I ask purely to play devil's advocate because it isn't feasible nor realistic)?

Especially in this case when you yourself said it's a cultural problem ( agreed btw), the distinction is especially meaningless to the end user, who doesn't give two cents whether they're replying to a microblog or not.

Hi @julian @scott,
yes. In fact I have yet to understand the sense of publicly posting and demanding being let alone with it. What culture is that?

@julian It's interesting how different platforms implement things. Some platforms, like Friendica, tell you which platform someone is using by showing a little icon next to their name on all of their posts (Mastodon icon, Hubzilla icon, potentially a NodeBB icon, etc.), whereas Mastodon makes it appear as if everyone is on Mastodon. Some Mastodon users are not even aware that they are talking to people on other platforms.

The reason why I say indicating that it is a forum or group discussion is useful is not just the cultural issue, but also because replies to forum posts are distributed differently than a normal post. You are not just replying to your followers and the person who posted, but also to everyone following the forum (or forum category).

But, this is something that is nice to have, and not needed. It just is useful information to have. And I doubt that platforms like Mastodon will make such a change anyway.

It's also interesting to see how platforms that pre-date Mastodon implement things versus platforms that came later and are influenced by Mastodon.

@scott@loves.tech I think it's a neat thing to show the software icon next to a post.

... but at the same time, think about who you want to use your software. Software geeks? Totally on board with that.

... but everyday people won't know what they're even looking at, and this (among other items people constantly bring up re: explaining ActivityPub) is all stuff that should be abstracted away from the end user.

It's not a matter of "before Mastodon" and "after Mastodon", at all.

@julian

It's not a matter of "before Mastodon" and "after Mastodon", at all.

I was trying not to state this so bluntly, but basically, platforms that came before Mastodon has blockquotes before Mastodon existed. We did not get rid of them in 2016, and we aren't getting rid of them now.

So, even if you implement this proposed feature, which is your right, some platforms will stay with the tried and true blockquotes.

@julian By the way, edits don't appear to be appearing on NodeBB. I fixed a typo, but NodeBB still displays it.

@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.

@scott@loves.tech 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 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.

@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 You're right, the choice of software shouldn't matter. Our goal is seamless interoperability.

@trwnh @thisismissem @mro @jupiter_rowland @renchap @scott @AltCode @leroy @Kichae @scott

@silverpill @julian

that's a bit simplistic imo. software doesn't matter, sure; what matters is what the software lets you *do*. but "interoperability" is not a goal in itself. it's a means to an end. for different software that let you do fundamentally different things in fundamentally different worldviews, there can be no meaningful interoperability.

example: fedi has concepts and abstractions for "posts" and "profiles". what happens when you don't have these same building blocks?

@silverpill @julian i posit a different goal, at least for myself: empowering people with effective tools by which they can express themselves.

i'm posting this from mastodon right now, but i could just as well be posting this locally from within nodeBB. the federation is irrelevant, and in some cases, the federation is actually a burden. it creates the seams in UX. federation is a boundary that information crosses. the goal of a discussion form is to get information across various interfaces.

@silverpill @julian reframing it in terms of information and interfaces, of data stores and transports, we find that there are multiple ways to participate in a centralized conversation:

- by web app + sign in (local or federated credentials)
- by HTTP POST to an endpoint (plus additional protocols on top)
- by emailing a certain address, if you wanted
- in theory you could physically send a letter to some building, if that was agreed upon beforehand, to manually enter it into the database...