@Em0nM4stodon please...

@aspensmonster It's not really a client bug per se, since #Mastodon philosophy is to keep the 500 char limit for everything (which I fully support, as one of the big reasons I enjoy #Fediverse (which we all once upon a time called #microblog-ing, remeber?) is that it helps me practice concision in my writing — a skill I struggle with.I think it's just a UI bug on both sides: #Tusky should warn but not stop you at 500, & web client should indicate you have to edit with a different client.

Seconded (thirded?). Also if posted as text-only and specially if posted somewhere that allows crossposting, it should make easier to preserve, even if the original instance goes down.

It's been a couple weeks and I wanted to add another perspective about this. I noticed a user downvoting posts, https://lemvotes.org/user/FarStare@lemmy.dbzer0.com if it helps to have specifics. In the more than one full year of existing, they have never once contributed via making a post, never once commenting even, just doling out up- and down-votes in roughly equal proportion, and even those nearly exclusively via posts but almost never comments. I am not concerned about receiving votes from PugJesus - either up or down, as PugJesus has earned the right to speak on behalf of the community. But who is this other person who is influencing how others see my content? Are they male or female? Do they have a degree of some kind? Do they primarily visit meme communities, as the vote pattern might suggest, or other communities as well? So how do I feel about people who use the Threadiverse more than others? My answer is more complex and nuanced than simply yay or nay. I might prefer the opposite of the implemented feature even - the more someone posts (including comments?), the more upvotes they are allowed to make? Have they not earned such? Also, if votes were exposed, each individual could decide for themselves how they wanted to make use of voting - perhaps someone would ban PugJesus, or conversely write special code (a 3rd party app / API recipient?) to highlight posts that PugJesus upvoted (isn't that how "boosting" works? at least re-tweeting does). It's really difficult to guess what someone wants, as each person wants different things. Which is why ultimately in an effort to make things more fair & equitable, the solution can end up making it less so. I like the follow-up suggestion to leave this new option OFF by default, so that an instance admin would have to specifically opt-in, perhaps as part of an overall suite of features limiting things like posts and comments as well. Although really, I think other approaches might work better - e.g. why would someone want to limit themselves to "some" of PugJesus' content, wouldn't they rather simply have it all or else ban him from the instance and therefore have none? I am not seeing the benefit realistically of having "some", especially when the delimiter is not based on community or overall content but simply what time of day (based on an arbitrary threshold for when they starts and ends to restart the next period) the votes are cast?

If Peertube tries to integrate YT content, most of what it'll get is to shadow and sink Peertube-first content. The difference in amount and scope of content is just far too abysmal.