@linos @bonfire @pfefferle @smallcircles @evan this makes me think what happens when you Quote post (using the newly defined mastodon way) a video from @peertube or a book review from @bookwyrm, isn't this already a way of embeding into a different context?

@liaizon @linos @bonfire @pfefferle @smallcircles @evan @peertube @bookwyrm Mastodon can't do this but FEP-e232 implementations can embed multiple objects. I'll try to make two links here

Video

Poll

@andypiper As you wrote a FEP for quoting, I really wonder what you think: isn't it that linking, embedding and quoting have quite something in common, so shouldn't their implementations be derivatives from each other?

@silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @smallcircles @evan @peertube

@linos @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube

The issue I see with the Object Links FEP is that it boils down to: "If I know you adhere to the FEP, now I know to apply special logic to as:Link". May work well if we only do (micro)blogging. Is it a good general mechanism for a heterogeneous interoperable social web?

I am thinking more of: "Use existing open standards". Web annotations comes to mind. Specifically an annotation motivatedBy linking.

Web Annotation Vocabulary

(www.w3.org)

@smallcircles @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube

I wonder if Mastodon quotes aren't technically related more to embeds than "actual quotes". Cause what a Mastodon quote is doing is always referring to the whole quoted object (Note) without specifying where (and of course the consent, which is magnificent!). So maybe an embed could just be an extended Mastodon-quote where it is specified where it is in the content, e.g. via just using <embed> tags.

"actual quotes": being able to quote parts of something, putting it into context (where in content) and being referring to the whole origin source.

I see that we should continue this discussion on socialhub/the FEPs discussion places.

@linos We discussed "partial quotes" when working on quote posts, and decided not to explore this because you could easily change the text of what you are quoting to make it misleading but still attributed to the original author. Also it would probably have been good to have this discussion when we asked for comments, now we are deep into implementation and did not get much feedback when asked for it

@smallcircles @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube

@renchap @linos @smallcircles @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube the "misleading" concern is part of a larger issue regarding trust and provenance for anything you see claimed anywhere. it's not just partial quotes. the only thing you can really do right now is load the original resource to see if the same claims/content is presented there by the original author.

in HTML there is the cite= parameter which gets underused for this.

@renchap @linos @smallcircles @andypiper @silverpill @liaizon @bonfire @evan @peertube "did they really say this" / "is this an accurate paraphrasing" is something that's kinda hard to deal with at a machine level but relatively easy to deal with at a human level. i guess you could do some kind of diff or search-based algorithm to figure out if the quoted bits are present in the cited resource?