If you crosspost from twitter to mastodon I would really appreciate it if you marked your account as a bot (see superuser.com/a/1439495 for explanation of the effect).

If it's a dual purpose account (i.e. crossposting AND direct posting), then I would appreciate it if you created a separate account for the twitter crossposting and marked that as a bot account.

Crossposted tweets appear as a mess of broken links, missing threads, and the account is often unresponsive to replies.


@nicksellen oh, it is a shame that crossposting is this frowned upon. I've been enjoying using moa.party, and I think that it adds value to the ecosystem as it boosts the visibility of the fediverse elsewhere.

I try to be responsive here of course; I basically alternate between tusky/pinafore and Twitter when I check out social media. My 2c is that crossposting, done responsibly, is likely a net win for the fediverse. Wdyt?

@nicksellen the way I think about it with good crossposting Twitter converges to yet another fediverse client and brings the fediverse into full view of a greater audience, potentially siphoning users away from Twitter at some rate.


@flancian I'm not opposing crossposting in general, just sharing my request that those accounts be marked as such, and that I can get a better idea if it's worth replying to a toot (it's not clear if replying to a crossposted tweet will engage the author).

Having crossposting accounts seperated means I can then choose to mute them, but the person can still interact directly on the fediverse too. Right now I have to choose, either mute their crossposting activity AND direct activity or neither.

@flancian I'm also not very interested in connecting to the great masses on twitter. My personal preference would be allowlist-only federation actually. A smaller more curated fediverse.

@nicksellen I understand and respect that choice, and I think you should have the tools to make the fediverse work in the way you want it to. What do you mean with allowlist-only federation though? You think that should be the default setup for @social.coop?

@flancian I wonder if allowlist federation for all of the fediverse would be a better default. The length of the blocklists that go around seems to get unmanageable at some point.

I, and many others, aren't here to have conversations with the entire world. The burden of moderation is crazily high in that case, it doesn't seem to scale.

I'd be quite happy to interact with a small set of curated instances/people (like in physical life). Dunbars number perhaps.


@nicksellen right -- that makes sense. I, on the other hand, am here to make as many acquaintances as possible, and tend to post in fully open/broadcast mode :)

I think the network should support both use cases; but I wonder if your profile and mine actually would fit better in two separate instances.

Is there a default @social.coop position in this spectrum?

Β· Β· 0 Β· 0 Β· 1
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!