that this is one of the most popular posts on mastodon currently is a clear indication of how widely pervasive the reply-guy problem is here, and that its not just a few obnoxious person that contribute to the problem
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
@ophiocephalic @thisismissem @laurenshof I definitely see where you're coming from, I just feel like the situation is so bad right now that it's worth trying, just for a bit. I would like to believe that at least some folks contributing to this problem are not trying to be malicious.
It's a bit like the "Replies from other servers may be missing" that was just added. Just a gentle reminder to think before you reply. And that's something we can all use every now and then.
-
Stefan Bohacekreplied to Emelia πΈπ» last edited by
@thisismissem @ophiocephalic @laurenshof What if it was something more subtle, like the "Replies from other servers may be missing" note I just mentioned?
"You don't follow this person, be nice!"
Something short and simple?
-
ophiocephalic πreplied to Stefan Bohacek last edited by
@stefan
Question here. Capitalist social networks have intermittently deployed things like this. Has there been any analysis on its efficacy in improving the tone of discourse? -
Stefan Bohacekreplied to ophiocephalic π last edited by
@ophiocephalic @thisismissem @laurenshof That's a very valid question, and I would love to see some data on this myself.
Although, are those notices typically dismissible? Either way, I guess it's more of a hypothesis I'd like to test, to see if a more persistent reminder could possibly contribute to a social change, over time.
-
@stefan @thisismissem @ophiocephalic
the core problem is that people do not seem to think that it is not nice to reply with complaints
-
ophiocephalic πreplied to Emelia πΈπ» last edited by
@thisismissem
Thank you! -
Emelia πΈπ»replied to ophiocephalic π last edited by
@ophiocephalic @stefan @laurenshof
That is, these ideas are not just being pulled out of thin air, there's a lot of research & testing that plays into these changes.
-
The Nexus of Privacyreplied to ophiocephalic π last edited by
Great question. A couple of links I know of:
@natematias et al found that randomized announcements of community rules to new users are helpful. Here, we're talking about a norm more than a rule but it might still be applicable. Here's the summary from the Prosocial Design Network (which is a useful resource for questions like this)
Preventing harassment and increasing group participation through social norms in 2,190 online science discussions.
Prosocial Design Network | Citation Β» DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1813486116
(www.prosocialdesign.org)
My impression is that there's more work that's been done on targeted nudges -- prompting people on specific posts that seem like they might not be great. That's harder (and the specific AI technique he used here doesn't fit in witih fedi's anti-algorithm philsophy, although there might well be other ways to do it). https://www.niemanlab.org/2017/02/reddits-rworldnews-community-used-a-series-of-nudges-to-push-users-to-fact-check-suspicious-news/
-
ophiocephalic πreplied to The Nexus of Privacy last edited by
@thenexusofprivacy
Thanks for these, good links (AI excepted!)Interesting to note that the prosocialdesign pages describe effective "interventions" which are display-only, no actual friction required
-
@laurenshof tl;dr comes across multiple ways, but its a valid response to posts that are off putting for that reason, in a similar way (or worse) that a paywall link is. So people began putting tl;dr summaries at the end of their long posts (or here as content warning) to address this criticism.
I don't read it as a request or demand to post a link to a mirror of the paywalled article, but that is really nice when someone posts such a link.
Its curious the discussion here considers shaming of these brief contentious criticism when in a way pw;dr is similarly a negation.
Reply guy terminology indicates a cultural in-crowd and by extension exclusion, even though the term is trying to define a kind of behavior people don't like. The confusion about what reply guy means in this thread highlights how reply guy can cause people to self-censor because they think the term may apply to them, even when it doesn't. Its still not well known so maybe that confusion will dissipate. Really the paywall abbreviation and reply guy label work similarly as a way to denigrate a behavior.
Criticizing someone for posting paywall links is a valid criticism because of its inaccessibility, irregardless that there is a work around. The expectation that someone should just not say anything is an expectation of self-censorship. Still, I agree the criticism should be positive and constructive instead, but pw;dr is a good way to get the point across quickly, and who has the time to write long posts... oh, wait, nevermind.
-
@HeliosPi tl;dr
-
@HeliosPi i did actually read it all and im still pretty strongly of the opinion that tl;dr is rude in pretty much all circumstances unless youre mutuals with a shared understanding
-
J. Nathan Matias π¦£replied to ophiocephalic π last edited by
@ophiocephalic @thenexusofprivacy @stefan @thisismissem @laurenshof hi folks!
A note about "etiquette" and rule reminders. Our interventions were notices about moderation policies that included information about enforcement. They reduced rates of harassment and also increased participation rates, in contexts where people could expect moderation enforcement.
On the fediverse, it's not easy to know the rules on any given postβΒ this post for ex could be moderated by six different servers
-
J. Nathan Matias π¦£replied to J. Nathan Matias 𦣠last edited by
@ophiocephalic @thenexusofprivacy @stefan @thisismissem @laurenshof I'm still trying to get my head around it, but my sense is that that basic fediverse protocols are especially designed around a defensive, content filtering model of governing behavior (block, ban, hide, remove) rather than a system for encouraging constructive participation and spreading positive behaviors. I would love to see more tools in the toolbox.
-
ophiocephalic πreplied to J. Nathan Matias 𦣠last edited by
@natematias
That's a good point and an interesting distinction, since what has been discussed here was more along the lines of norms reminders or suggestions, rather than rules to be enforced -
J. Nathan Matias π¦£replied to ophiocephalic π last edited by
@ophiocephalic @thenexusofprivacy @stefan @thisismissem @laurenshof
Yep! To social scientists, norms are beliefs about how specific other people, groups, and institutions will respond to us if we act in a certain way. Psychologically, norm interventions are effective if we believe:
- people/groups/orgs will sanction us in formal or informal ways if we behave that way
- people/groups/orgs will trust, respect, and exchange value with us more if we behave that way -
J. Nathan Matias π¦£replied to J. Nathan Matias 𦣠last edited by
@ophiocephalic @thenexusofprivacy @stefan @thisismissem @laurenshof
Institutional rules are norm enforcement tools designed to be fair, impartial, & easily communicated across a range of people regardless of their relationships.
Norm interventions in informal contexts depend on how well someone knows the group, and whether they want to impress them or not. For ex, that's why informal norms against sexism/racism can be less effective if there's no shared context.
-
J. Nathan Matias π¦£replied to J. Nathan Matias 𦣠last edited by
@ophiocephalic @thenexusofprivacy @stefan @thisismissem @laurenshof so glad you're having this conversation!
As a scientist who provides data science support to online communities to do their own experiments in online governance, my experience has been that the intuitions of people with deep lived experience often have things to teach us scientists, so I always have time to listen and learn from people's brainstorms!
-
ophiocephalic πreplied to J. Nathan Matias 𦣠last edited by
@natematias
Thanks for these links and this info. The concerns I was raising previously had to do with the distinction between engineers building tools to self-empower users, vs. the possibility of engineers building tools to manipulate users. But this wasn't to point a finger at anyone on the chat, rather to impart a general vigilance against the kind of slippery slope we all descended down with capitalist social networks (e.g, in the worst extreme, Facebook's nonconsensual emotion-altering experiments).That said, the reply guy problems here are driving friends, good people and great minds away from the fedi, so the status quo is not acceptable. After looking at these additional inputs, I concede that the kind of mechanism under discussion could be part of an approach to improving the situation, so long as it's handled in a mindful way. But I would guess that the specific content of these prompts could be a contentious determination