Another real world example: A famous comedian once grossly misunderstood something I said, quote tweeted it with a framing based on that, and sent tens of thousands of views, hundreds of replies, and thousands of notifications my way over the course of a few minutes. All extremely hostile.
It can go well: SwiftOnSecurity once QTd me and their comment led to lots of good conversation on the quote and in my own notifications. But they cultivate a good community of followers and understand the responsibility they hold with a 6 digit follower count.
The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter. An innocent mistake can be as harmful here as malice because, as I experienced, no amount of trying to address the mis-representation to people coming at me helped because I was just some nobody and someone they trusted told them what's what.
> The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter.
There have been plenty of circumstances online where I was, in fact, the fool. I've had many interactions where I benefitted from being corrected. Almost universally, these corrections came in the form of a reply or private discussion designed to engage me specifically and not in a performative manner, and I found them very helpful.
I see less value to someone having the right (or perceived duty) to amplify my meager reach while correcting me in front of people who don't know me and who lack any empathy for me. I don't see the difference between this and someone, during a conversation in a bar, standing up on the bartop and yelling HEY EVERYONE, CHECK OUT WHAT THIS GUY JUST SAID! and then loudly correcting me while egging everyone else on.
I have questions about the impact of this feature on more famous figures - for example, I'm not sure I'd want a politician to employ this functionality against me. There is some balance that likely needs to be struck that takes into account the reach and impact of the original message and thus the potential for damage. They seem to be touching on that with the future community notes feature. I can see why that's a more appealing approach. That allows the opportunity for correction/response while not actively promoting the thing that's being responded to - just providing context when people come across the post organically.
I've had two pull-aside moments exactly like this on social media! They changed me for the better. The pull out and up of a quote never had that effect even if that's the stated intent of its most ardent defenders.
It can go well: SwiftOnSecurity once QTd me and their comment led to lots of good conversation on the quote and in my own notifications. But they cultivate a good community of followers and understand the responsibility they hold with a 6 digit follower count.
The thing about quote posting is that the very act completely collapses context, and puts all the power and responsibility on the quoter. An innocent mistake can be as harmful here as malice because, as I experienced, no amount of trying to address the mis-representation to people coming at me helped because I was just some nobody and someone they trusted told them what's what.