Paul Cantrell
A thing that feels kind of obvious, but I think genuinely confuses a whole lot of people in the moment:
When somebody posts something in their TL, unless explicitly stated otherwise, they’re not talking to •you•. They’re not implying it’s relevant to •you•. They’re not specifically looking for •your• thoughts. If there’s a question, it’s not addressed to •you•. They’re just talking.
If you reply, however, you •are• talking to them.
Different situations. Different appropriate social forms.
Paul Cantrell
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.
Paul Cantrell
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?
Paul Cantrell
@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.)
Jenniferplusplus
@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 Cantrell
@jenniferplusplus
I have no idea how this plays out, but I’m interested!
ShadSterling
@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
Paul Cantrell
@ShadSterling
Oh, that sounds like some kind of “and it turns out they were all in hell” horror movie
Jenniferplusplus
@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 Cantrell
@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.
Paul Cantrell
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.
Paul Cantrell
@MisuseCase
Ha. Yeah, just added a post about this very thing.
Misuse Case
@inthehands Hahaha I see lots of reply guys in your mentions being Totally Normal about your statement, which should be common sense.
Paul Cantrell
@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!
ticho
@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.
Paul Cantrell
@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
@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.
Scott Feeney
@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 ...
Paul Cantrell
Louis Ingenthron
@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.
Paul Cantrell
@seangies @pointlessone https://hachyderm.io/@inthehands/113187074644463997
Sean
@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.
PointlessOne :loading:
@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.
Paul Cantrell
@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.
Zagone
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.
Zagone
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.
Paul Cantrell
@zagone @pointlessone
At no point in this conversation have I questioned the •right• of anyone to respond. That is not the topic here.
Zagone
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.
Paul Cantrell
@river
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Either I made it up or I don’t remember where I got it! Regardless, glad you like it.
River Tae Smith (he/him)
@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
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.