The thing about subposting is that I've come to regard it as frequently being the ethical choice of "I have thoughts about another post I just saw on on This Platform", in a way that somewhat applies across specific platforms.

Cohost cultivates a very conversational feel to its functional Quote-Tweet equivalent, "repost and add", which actually makes it feel worse when it's used to fundamentally disagree with people. QTs are at least framed as citing someone for the starting point of a new thought; replying is...replying. If you'd balk at vaulting onto the stage at an open mic, grabbing the mic stand still warm from someone else's fingers, to open with "THAT LAST SHITHEAD—" then, uh. 🤷 And replies, in that metaphor, are collaring someone as they descend from the stage to go "OH HEY. I HAD THOUGHTS ON THAT" and if you wouldn't use that kind of opportunity to go "YOU SHITHEAD" either....

Subposting puts a bit of impersonal distance between post and response. And I truly think that's sometimes the correct thing to do.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @caffeinatedOtter's post:

Yeah, I agree with this. One other aspect is that, from the perspective of the reader who isn't involved in the whole thing, repost-and-add does at least have the benefit that the context of the response is provided automatically, whereas with a subpost the poster has to consciously provide the context (e.g. with a link to or summary of the thing they're responding to). Without that, it becomes unintentional vagueposting because the reader (reading most recent posts before older ones) often won't have seen the thing that's being responded to, and if they don't follow the relevant people then they may never see it. But that's a problem easily solved while still subposting, so it doesn't outweigh the problems with repost-and-add that you've mentioned.