at first i dismissed the idea of likes on twtxt as not sensible…like at all — then i considered they could just be published in a metadata field (though that field could get really unruly after a while)

retwts are plausible, as “RE: https://example.com/twtxt.txt#abcdefg”, the hash could even be the original timestamp from the feed to make it human readable/writable, though im extremely wary of clogging up timelines

i thought quote twts could be done extremely sensibly, by interpreting a mention+hash at the end of the twt differently to when placed at the beginning — but the twt subject extension requires it be at the beginning, so the clean fallback to a normal reply i originally imagined is out of the question — it could still be possible (reusing the retwt format, just like twitter!) but i’m not convinced it’s worth it at that point

is any of this in the spirit of twtxt? no, not in the slightest, lmao

@zvava@twtxt.net I never used any of the social media platforms, that’s why I’m probably ignorant.

I don’t understand the concept of a retwt. Just quote the (relevant) parts from whereever and comment on that. Or post a link instead of a quote. Sounds simple enough. :-) That’s also has the benefit that it works with every source, no matter what. Since it’s called retwt, I’d imagine this to only work (well) with whatever messages the system itself offers. But I could be wrong. What would be the benefit of having a dedicated message type or structure for “hey, look at that” messages in your opinion?

Hmm, what’s a content warning?

@zvava@twtxt.net i think CWs would be very cool here!

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org a content warning is kind of like a forum spoiler cut, or like the <details> tag in HTML; it lets you write a sentence or so that someone can then click to expand to see the actual post. it’s called a CW because most people use it to warn for potentially triggering/harmful subjects, but you can really use it for anything, like spoilers in a TV show or even for joke punchlines