Notices by Dr. Johnathan Flowers (shengokai@zirk.us), page 2

That is, if @Gargron is serious about introducing the QT feature, the implementation would not be a cold one as was the case with twitter itself back in the day. The fediverse QT feature would benefit from the hindsight of how the feature enabled abuse on the bird site.

This is a point that a lot of anti QT takes miss: it seems to assume that we cannot, and will not, learn from what happened on the bird site with QTs. It assumes a direct replication of the QT function which ignores context.

Context, in this case, matters because the functions of Mastodon are different from the functions of twitter and the differences will matter for how the QT will be used socially.

Again, this is something that anti-QT folks miss because they are focused on the FACT of the history of QT use and not the possibility of its implementation in a new environment with different affordances and resources.

This is not to appeal to a "poverty model" or an "incapacity model" where marginalized communities are concerned, but to point out the very real resource dependencies necessary for a marginalized group to run an instance.

Beyond technical resources and monetary resources, two things which have been covered in the previous litigations of this suggestion by marginalized mastodonians, there are also personnel resources as well, by which I mean moderators.

Right, so: I get a lot of these kinds of replies. Not to dunk on Nemo, but the general tendency of telling folks to start their own instance with all of the features we want ignores crucial things that marginalized communities often lack: time and resources.

https://corteximplant.com/@nemo/109351863643584265