Twice in the past fews days, I’ve gotten a reply from a Mastodon user complaining that I should have put the direct link to an article.
- On Lemmy I posted the direct link to the article as usual
- On their Mastodon feed, I appear as a Mastodon user that posted a link to a Lemmy thread
It seems that threadiverse posts are being seen by more mastodon users now, which is great, but maybe the formatting could use some improvements?
Example 1:
- My post: https://lemmy.ca/comment/19153240
- How they see it: https://sfba.social/@otters_raft@lemmy.ca/115267196743748430
Example 2:
- My post: https://lemmy.ca/comment/19202083
- How they see it: https://mas.to/@otters_raft@lemmy.ca/115283224174559468
I know Mastodon got “quote posts” recently, is that related to this change?
Is Mastodon also getting a “group” view? That might be the best solution to the problem


But isn’t that how Mastodon handles content warnings? Baffling that they’d do it like that frankly given that it prevents long-form content (when masto actually starts supporting that) from being CW’d.
Not necessarily, no. Content warnings were implemented in Mastodon specifically as
summaryplussensitive=true. Perhaps not originally, but that is enforced now (all CW’d posts from Mastodon are marked sensitive). Might be Mastodon will CW notes that don’t havesensitive, out of caution, but this doesn’t apply to non-Notes.So a summary included in a non-Note is not CW’d by Mastodon currently.
I know, I was just saying that it prevents a non-Note from being CW’d, as the
summeryis used as the post’s content.I suppose, although in that scenario theoretically one could add
as:sensitiveto mark the status as CW’d? I don’t think CW logic is even run for non-Notes at the moment, though I could be mistaken.Masto interprets a
Noteset asas:sensitivewithout asummaryto mean ‘blur any media attached, but don’t collapse the text content’. I believe the same is true for non-Notes, but obviously without thesummary= CW logic.