[colinsane]

> cross-posting has been around for as long as there have been platforms. It just happens.

there’s a range between “something i posted to my public newsletter/blog” and “encrypted signal chat message”. for most people, crossposting is OK in the former, but a clear norms violation in the latter. ultimately, this can only be enforced culturally — and yet most of us still expect that as viable: “it just happens” is the thinking of a selfish CEO who does something blatantly unethical and defends himself by claiming “but i didn’t technically break the law!”

Mastodon is somewhere on this scale — and quite likely at least slightly closer to the chat end of that scale than twitter is, taken in whole. it also has features to signal what is appropriate (e.g. it’s more of a violation to cross-post something with a lock icon next to it than with an unlock icon than with a globe icon). but new users aren’t likely to have a strong understanding of this visibility setting, so it’s even more the case that a norm violation might be obvious to one section of the userbase while the (unacquainted) norm violator is completely unaware.

yeah, defederating is a solution. in a similar sense that getting a restraining order is a solution to IRL disagreements. it’s more pleasant for everyone if you can reach shared norms and only deploy the stronger tools against those who actually mean you harm.

[jefftk]

> Mastodon is somewhere on this scale — and quite likely at least slightly closer to the chat end of that scale than twitter is

Even for public posts? Which show up in the federated timeline for thousands of people you don't know, are visible to anyone who loads your profile, and can be shared by URL? To me that sounds very close to a blog post (no need to ask for permission to share) and not much like a direct message (definitely ask first).

[colinsane]

here's how i see it:

- a blog post is something i put out there for a wide audience to read, take something away from, and bring back to disparate communities. it's a prompt to start many discussions, with no expectation that i'm in or even aware of those discussions.

- a public fediverse post is me opening a conversation directly with the readers. i'm dropping some idea in front of the other people at the bar, particularly the guy next to me with whom i've already exchanged pleasantries (my followers), but bonus if people near us overhear and want to join the conversation (maybe i'll make some new connections).

it's this difference in distance between me and the recipient (both spatially and temporally). if a reader screenshots my words -- name attached -- and brings that elsewhere, that risks a faux pas: that's more likely to be them talking about me behind my back (why take the conversation elsewhere when i'm right here in this moment speaking with you? and why do so in a way which attributes me while artificially raising the barrier to obtaining context?)

there's nuance here, for sure. someone with 50 followers might expect the bar-like experience, whereas someone with 5000 followers might accept that they're seen more as a spokesperson. screenshot-sharing (author's complaint) is different from posting the URL to an aggregator is different than sharing the URL in a group chat. most people i know out here are more interested in growing a dunbar-level number of connections than in becoming a spokesman. if you're crossposting i think that's the judgement you'd want to make first.

[jefftk]

> if a reader screenshots my words -- name attached -- and brings that elsewhere

The author wasn't just objecting to screenshotting though, but to linking ("some people had cross-posted my Mastodon post into Twitter"). Which seems basically the same as boosting, which is (I think?) normal no-consent-needed Mastodon behavior?

(I wrote more as a post: https://www.jefftk.com/p/mastodon-linking-norms)