Mastodon is debuting a long-await feature for quote-posting — and has added some guardrails that, it hopes, will counter the pile-on dynamics that make “dunking” so caustic most everywhere else. The tools arrive on the network’s biggest community servers, mastodon. social and mastodon. online, before rolling out more widely with the next major software update.
A Quote Post, With the Author in Control
Power users The anything-goes approach commonly seen on other platforms contrasts Mastodon’s implementation, which puts the original author in control. A user who is quoted will realise that they have been so, and be able to pull their post out of the context—at which point if suits them to do so they can remove that first few words of their post from the quote’s container. That won’t eradicate the quote itself, but it removes the visual anchor that regularly stokes dogpiles.
Authors can also preempt problems. A per-post setting permits them to stop quoting entirely in the future, while settings at the account level let users restrict quoting to followers — or simply turn it off for everyone other than themselves. And if one account is quote-sharing in bad faith over and over again, a new restriction allows the original poster to cut them off permanently from quote-sharing their posts.
Quoting is available and exists under a menu that shows up when you tap on the Boost button. If you don’t then the author hasn’t opened quoting for that post. This design is intentional: boosting remains frictionless re-share, while quoting is an opt-in action that the writer consents to.
Why Curbing ‘Dunks’ Matters
“Dunk” culture — adding a mocking remark as you reshare something that has been posted — drives engagement, but it can also lead to cross-platform harassment. Pew Research Center research has found that a larger share of adults have experienced online harassment, studies from universities such as Yale and M.I.T. suggest that outrage cues influence what gets shared or commented on more, and how extensively it is spread or participated in up. Quote posts are not necessarily a bad thing; journalists and researchers need them for context and critique. The problem emerges when those quotes gain momentum as rallying cries that direct negative attention at an individual.
Mastodon’s guardrails are a product decision that subverts the engagement-at-all-costs ethos. By default, the setting prompts users to “think about consent and context.” If authors can decouple their content from toxic quotes, potential pile-ons lose oxygen — and attention mechanics start to favor conversation over spectacle.
Federation Complicates, but Also Allows for Safety
Mastodon is not one site, but a network of independent servers running the same software and linked to each other via ActivityPub. That structure complicates universal enforcement, but provides local levers. Instance admins can set defaults on the instance level for quote settings, and mods have the choice of defederating from servers that do not follow community standards. The fresh quote controls will work across servers and when an author restricts quoting or deletes an embed, the change suits wherever[!] software versions match.
The other side of this is transparency: every server can publish what it believes about the rightness of restricting quotes, and users get to choose servers that match their preference. As a benefit, open-source advocates and digital rights groups have touted that market of communities — as opposed to a corporate arbitration — as an enticing feature.
How It’s Different From X, Bluesky and Threads
On X, quote-tweets are a primary means of engagement with restricted controls for the quoted author. Bluesky will permit quotes but will leave moderation tools and community tagging as the primary methods to curb abuse. Threads has iterated on both safety and hidden-word filters, but granular controls over quoting the original author’s content feel inconsistent between features. Mastodon is interesting in that it regards quoting as conditional from inception, not an inherent right of the audience.
Pragmatically, this means experts, public health agencies and community organizers can open the quoting during campaigns where amplification is helpful then tighten it for sensitive topics. It’s a more context-aware model for speech — particularly important for marginalized users who are disproportionately subject to targeted harassment, as brought to light by organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
What Users and Admins Should Do
Once your server upgrades, for the average user just check everything at account level settings. You can decide whether to allow quotes from anyone, followers or no one at all, and you get per-post controls if you need the sort of reach that expanding visibility provides. If a quote goes really sour, take out the embed and think about limiting that user’s ability to post quotes. Document your instance defaults and moderation playbook for server admins so users will know how quote controls interact with local rules.
There is no one thing that will halt performative pile-ons. But Mastodon’s consent-first quoting is a significant recalibration. It makes space for complexity and criticism without making its targets into content, and it’s a sign that growth does not have to come at the expense of safety. In a social web that can at times reward the sharpest elbow, that’s a welcome course correction.
