A thing that feels kind of obvious, but I think genuinely confuses a whole lot of people in the moment:
-
One of the primary ingredients of the “Mastodon reply guy” phenomenon, one I think does not always necessarily come from a place of ill will, is a kind of online solipsism. The UIs of social media apps invite us all to think that we’re in the room with •everyone•, that •everyone• sees us, is talking to us.
It’s a bit like the parasocial relationship of the singer who “just knows me” but has never actually met me. This design of this space makes us forget the nature of our relationships.
-
@inthehands you've been knocking it out of the park with these threads, can't agree more.
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by [email protected]
Somebody on here posted an excellent and fascinating research paper that offered a framework for “recipient of communication misunderstanding what •kind• of communication it was,” e.g. a request for commiseration misinterpreted as a request for help. I cannot find this paper. Does this ring a bell for anyone?
(And yes, that there is an explicit request for a reply if the answer is “yes!”)
-
@tehstu
I appreciate that! (And that sort of encouragement is an excellent example of the kind of communication that •is• welcome even when not explicitly invited.) -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by
@inthehands I hate how well this explains so many of the interactions on here. Now I'm trying to imagine how I could unflatten timeline views to make it more clear at what level a post could have been intended for the reader.
Like, I'm more welcoming of replies from my followers than total strangers. More still from mutuals, and people I've exchanged replies in the past. That kind of thing could feed into some UI nudges to remind people of the actual social distances involved.
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus
I have no idea how this plays out, but I’m interested! -
@inthehands there’s a weird variation of this in the online product page Q&A systems, where someone can ask about some obscure detail and the site will email the question to a bunch of previous buyers and a bunch of answers will come in from them basically saying they don’t know
-
@ShadSterling
Oh, that sounds like some kind of “and it turns out they were all in hell” horror movie -
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by
@inthehands my first thought is to remove the reply button from home feed posts where you don't follow the author. Or maybe always? Maybe no one needs to do drive by replies? Anyway, definitely make strangers click into the whole thread in order to reply.
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus
Yeah, that seems like a really smart way to start. Something that makes replying to strangers have just a certain kind of friction, something that feels like crossing a social barrier. -
Scott Feeneyreplied to Jenniferplusplus last edited by
@jenniferplusplus @inthehands Phanpy has done this, removed the reply button from the home feed! You have to either click into the thread or click the ...
-
Jenniferplusplusreplied to Scott Feeney last edited by
@graue @inthehands phanpy seems to have put a lot of thought into these things, so that's good company to be in
-
Michael Dekkerreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by
@inthehands I’d like the default interaction for non-mutuals to be a post on the reply-er timeline. OP and their followers would be able to see this response, but it wouldn’t thread. There’s a name for this feature that I won’t mention …
-
At the risk of being one of the people this is meant for... why post anything if it is not meant to be read and interacted with? Is that not the whole point of *social* media? Otherwise, why not just use a journal?
Folks reply with what they know, and it turns out that people are experts on themselves.
Perhaps it is because I seldom post and have few followers but I welcome interaction and replies as long as they are respectful. After all, that is why I am here.
-
@torque
It’s a fair question. Two parts:1. People may find thoughts useful even if they do not reply to them.
2. As you point out, sometimes a reply from a stranger •is• welcome — if and only if it is valuable to the replyee. That requires a little social delicacy, and a little humility. “This is good thought” or “I would like to hear more about X” are usually welcome replies. “Well I don’t have this problem that you’re talking about” is usually obnoxious.
-
PointlessOne :loading:replied to Paul Cantrell last edited by
@inthehands I don’t think it’s entirely fair to put full responsibility on the “reply guy”. OP knows what kind of platform they post on. They are aware that there will be a Reply button under their post.
If OP doesn’t want a reply they should use a medium that doesn’t provide an opportunity for reply. A blog with disabled comments, a static web page, or even an offline medium like a paper journal. Or be ready to ignore all replies to that post.
We can blame platform’s affordances all we want but we can not deny that the choice of platform is entirely on the OP and they are at least partially responsible for the outcomes of that choice.
-
@inthehands Hahaha I see lots of reply guys in your mentions being Totally Normal about your statement, which should be common sense.
-
The number of people in replies who (1) completely missed the point by misreading the first post as “people shouldn’t reply” and (2) then replied anyway is… unsurprising, I suppose, but still impressive.
-
@MisuseCase
Ha. Yeah, just added a post about this very thing. -
@inthehands An excellent analysis, something I, and probably most other people, always somehow knew, but couldn't put into words.
Going one step further, this inability to understand that a reply of certain kind might not always be welcome seems to me caused by lack of empathy - that is, inability to imagine myself in the poster's place and understanding what the conversation might look like from their point of view.