OP: *Expresses frustration; elides some details*
-
tbh it isn't really a matter of trying to please allistics. I can do that too—I have decades of training in it, as it were (even if I am rusty), and that is a _skill_—but this is categorically different.
Your mileage may vary, but: A lot of it for me is simply choosing to not engage and being aware of whose space I am in.
When I reply to someone on their timeline I am in their space.
Presently we are in @jenniferplusplus's space as well as our own. So her rules are governing.
1/
-
@jenniferplusplus started this thread and we are both still replying to her.
Now I have (what I think is) a good rapport with her. We don't always agree, but we have a fair bit of history and have been mutuals for a long time.
You and I have also been interacting with a long time and have (again what I believe to be) a good rapport.
So I can be a little more casual. My (bayesian) analysis is informed by history and context with you both, and I have a feel for the lines.
2/
-
Hrefna (DHC)replied to Hrefna (DHC) last edited by [email protected]
Some things can vary a space. Two of us are on hachyderm, you are on lgbtqia, other visitors will be on other spaces. Hashtags also can change the dynamics.
But what I don't do is show up in randos spaces all that often to make sure they Really Understand
a point that I could make on my own timeline. I also try _very_ hard to make it clear what my intent is in a given space.Especially if we don't have history so that they know I am not arguing.
3/
-
IME that clarity of _intent_ is important.
"I know you know this"
"I agree and"
etc.
But also just: why are you there? What is your goal in the interaction?
Are you trying to build rapport? Are you trying to change their mind? Are you looking to hear yourself speak?
I personally find that knowing why _I_ am there in the first place is critical for shaping how others perceive that question, but a lot of people do not seem to know why they are engaging.
4/4
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
Still on vacation and my phone is still broken. I may or may not read the replies later
-
@UlrikeHahn it's actually uncommon that disagreement is welcome, regardless of whether it's an attack. A very significant proportion of posts are to express an emotion, or to relate an experience. Those aren't things you can disagree with.
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Sebastian Lauwers last edited by
@teotwaki there's a lot of reasons, but the one that e can do something about is the way mastodon is designed to create this outcome. It flattens everything and obscures most context, makes it hard to read and easy to write, and gives the OP no ability to discourage unwelcome behavior.
-
@jenniferplusplus I agree that disagreement is unwelcome, but the problem I see is that the possibility of disagreement is part of the notion of ‘discussion’. So if discussion is valued then disagreement basically follows. I think discussion is one of the reasons people come here, no?
-
@UlrikeHahn @jenniferplusplus I an old, and have been on the Internet a long time. I have learned two things (of relevance). 1: Unsolicited advice is criticism. 2: If I'm contributing to a thread because I think "someone is wrong on the internet" rather than trying to achieve something good and positive and mutually beneficial, I should Just Not.
-
@ravenbait @jenniferplusplus thanks Sam! it’s really helpful to me in clarifying my intuitions here. I think your 2 rules would be perfect for an online social media system that was just a series of pairwise interactions: I see a stream of posts with the option to just reply to that sender or not. But the online social media we have is people contributing to a very, very, large scale, public dialogue. Effects of what is and isn’t said go way beyond an individual speaker and replies. 1/2
-
@ravenbait @jenniferplusplus 2/2 I think we’ve never tried that in human history, and I don’t think we have ever developed a functioning set of behavioural rules or social norms to match the ones we have all internalised for one-on-one conversations, or discussions with friends, work meetings etc.?
-
@ravenbait @jenniferplusplus or to say that more simply: I totally agree with your good faith clause (2) but the heart of the problem, for me, is that “mutually beneficial” seems to necessarily extend beyond an OP and an immediate reply….
-
@UlrikeHahn That's not to imply that everything I contribute has some wider, grander purpose. Absolutely not. But I need to set myself some kind of ground rules or else I'll be back to arguing with trolls about mandatory bike helmet legislation and bicycle registration, or something else unproductive for everyone involved. Maybe I should say that I try to be kind to those I'm talking to, and if I can't be kind, I probably shouldn't be talking to them.
-
@ravenbait @jenniferplusplus Sam, I couldn’t agree more that your rule is an important one, I just feel like it doesn’t go far enough. If I think on exchanges I’ve had here that were the worst, I think they’ve involved posts where I’ve responded because I felt there was something problematic or hurtful toward other, third parties in the mix, and the other person in the failed exchange I think felt the same, but from a very different perspective.. how do we navigate that?
-
@jenniferplusplus meh, this is a social network, you are not publishing in the void and cannot expect everyone to fit exactly your preferences in terms of what kind of reply you like.
-
@agaudeul @jenniferplusplus we can’t expect people to reply exactly the way we want. But we can call out patterns of bad behavior that are harmful to people who are often harmed by social media reply guys.
-
@jenniferplusplus @teotwaki Is there a way to limit/customize replies?
-
@peterbutler @teotwaki not on mastodon
-
@jenniferplusplus It seems like that should be at or near the top of the Features request list
Everyone should be able to control who can reply in any way they see fit (rather than have to constantly block, etc.), 4 sure
It’s more than OK to limit replies to certain groups. I could see that as a very useful feature — this post is for {x} list of people, etc.
I have a hard time ignoring replies myself, but I think it’s a skill one can practice. I’m trying it
-
@peterbutler It should be, yes. It's been an open request for 6 years, and it's easily the most upvoted feature request.
“Disable replies” feature · Issue #8565 · mastodon/mastodon
Most blogging systems and some social networks like Dribbble (possibly Instagram?) have a “disable comments/replies” feature. I wonder if it could be of use in Mastodon? Adding a “Disable replies” checkbox in the privacy controls when po...
GitHub (github.com)
