Recent searches
Search options
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
@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.
@zagone @pointlessone
At no point in this conversation have I questioned the •right• of anyone to respond. That is not the topic here.