Few points I want to throw out there on the Great QT debates.
1. It sems very obviously misleading to claim the opt-in variant would satisfy everyone - e.g., if your goal is to call things out that to criticize, you can hardly accept needing consent from the person you're disagreeing with.
2. If pro-QT voices can force through an opt-in version, then there's little reason to think they won't subsequently force through the much smaller changes to opt-out and no-consent versions.
🇳🇱
@TEG The QT feature is already implemented and widely used. It just isnt in gargron's version of the code.. it already is not an opt-in or opt-out thing... anyone who is on a server with the feature can do it.
It is also literally equivelant to putting a link at the end of a post, so its kinda silly people are arguing about this at all.
QOTO, a mastodon flavor, has had this feature for many years now.
@TEG It has nothing to do with the size of the servers even... the vast majority of fediverse software supports it out of the box. mastodon vanilla is really the only major exception.
@freemo So that's maybe one thing that's interesting about the whole issue and debate - then why are people so demanding about having it implemented where it isn't?
@TEG Wanting it implemented makes sense, I agree there... What baffles me is all this talk about how to implement it, opt-in, opt-out... the standard is already defined, there isnt much to debate IMO just implement it if you want it.
There is no doubt a lot of ignorance... problem is I've seen just as much ignorance from users that have been here for years.
@freemo Oh, absolutely, I'm all for taking the view of using a server that does have the feature if you want it; that doesn't seem to be good enough for everyone though. But it seems like the "fediverse" way of doing things (saying this very much as a newbie).
I do think it's more about the QT-associated attitudes/behaviours than what it is technically. Not having it on a big server seems like a potentially good thing, kind of pattern-break.