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.
@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.
@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 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?