A thing that feels kind of obvious, but I think genuinely confuses a whole lot of people in the moment:
-
@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.
-
@graue @jenniferplusplus @inthehands
Off the top of my head:
A color code system. Red for no replies (and no reply button), dark orange for replies from followers only (and a Facebook style option of only they can see it), yellow for all can reply, and green for please reply. I suppose there needs to be a symbol too for the color blind.
-
Louis Ingenthronreplied to Paul Cantrell last edited by
@inthehands Right, they are not talking to *you* specifically, but any public post to social media is inherently a conversation starter, or a public request-for-comment. If you're not DMing an individual, you're starting an open conversation. That's the entire point of social media.
-
Zagonereplied to PointlessOne :loading: last edited by
At least for myself, when I post here I *ASSUME* that I will get replies. It's sort of the point really.
Especially since the platform emphasizes "followers" not "friends" I don't look for people I already knew in real life (like Facebook).
This said, there is some social etiquette. I always hope I won't be piled on by haters. I try to be polite. I am hesitant to enter conversations with a majority of very different people discussing a topic I know little about.
-
@pointlessone @inthehands I’d take it a step further and say that I use these platforms in the first place _because_ anyone can reply. I _want_ to see those replies. If I wanted to read one person’s unchallenged takes, I’d be reading their blog.
The beauty of these platforms is that any random person can step in and offer counterpoints and alternative points of view. A little noise is the price for that level of openness.
-
Aha! I just figured out what is bugging me about this. It totally reverses older online social etiquette.
It was/is the norm on email listservs, BBS boards, and online forums (maybe Facebook, definitely ancient CompuServe and AOL) to look DOWN on people who never replied.
They were/are known as LURKERS.
This may be a generational misunderstanding in part.
-
@ticho
Yes, taking the perspective of others — or realizing that’s necessary in communication — is the missing skill here. To be fair, both those things are very hard! -
@zagone @graue @jenniferplusplus
We need reply controls; it’s ridiculous that we don’t have them. The technical excuses are BS (and yes, I understand them).But that’s kind of beside the point. The OP isn’t about not replying. It’s about replying with appropriate social awareness.
-
@zagone @pointlessone
Maybe. In both cases, the point is that people need to think about context and relationship in their communication, and that’s hard, and failure to do so is the cause of many of the problems people notice about Mastodon and replies in general. -
Paul -- We agree on many points (and certainly don't have to on everything).
You say: "people need to think about context and relationship in their communication, and that’s hard, and failure to do so is the cause of many of the problems"
ABSOLUTELY.
We could also (as you and others point out) use some controls on who can see and respond.
I think the only spot we have a friendly disagreement is in assumed right of strangers to respond. I think it is implied.
-
@inthehands @graue @jenniferplusplus
Agree on controls. Agree on appropriate social awareness.
I'm a bit lost here: "The OP isn’t about not replying. It’s about replying with appropriate social awareness."
I'm reading OP as "original point" - right?
I THINK you were saying not to reply to TL posts unless invited? Or am I wrong? Thanks.
Maybe you are saying to not assume the TL post was specifically about myself as I read? I get this. No need to get reactive or butt-hurt.
-
@zagone @inthehands @graue your reply seemed to assume that some enforceable reply limiting controls exist. But they don't. And anyway, that is tangential to what the thread was about, which is reminding people that posts are usually not directed at the reader, and in fact the reader is often a complete stranger to the author.
-
@jenniferplusplus @inthehands @graue
I may have misunderstood the original meaning of the post as strangers should not reply to TL posts -- rather than that strangers should not assume such are directed at them personally. (Thereby following that they should reply less often and very politely and carefully if at all.)
Agree reply limiting tools don't exist. Maybe they should.
-
@jenniferplusplus @inthehands @graue
I do think its implied in the medium that strangers CAN reply if they wish.
Put another way, "reply guys" are okay *IF* they are polite, kind, thoughtful, and respectful of differing opinions. And not narcissistically assuming its all about themselves.
There are considerations in this discussion of both when to respond and how to respond.
-
@zagone @pointlessone
At no point in this conversation have I questioned the •right• of anyone to respond. That is not the topic here. -
@zagone @jenniferplusplus @graue
Yes, that. That is exactly the point of the OP. -
River Tae Smith (he/him)replied to Paul Cantrell last edited by
@inthehands Sorry this is so blisteringly off-topic but do you know where you get dot-for-emphasis from (or if you invented it), because I've never seen it before and I think its cool
-
Paul Cantrellreplied to River Tae Smith (he/him) last edited by
@river
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Either I made it up or I don’t remember where I got it! Regardless, glad you like it.