3 ms·

>Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than abuse? That is missing the point. I'm not the GP, but I don't think anyone is

by jmcqk6 6y ago

>Are there situations where one could conceivably have a different outcome than abuse? That is missing the point. I'm not the GP, but I don't think anyone is denying that there are people with DMs open that do not get abused. I am one such person, for example. The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false.

wenc 6y ago
> The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false. I appreciate the nuanced response. I think it's possible to argue for the contrary position of the second clause of your statement without entailing the first clause. I do think that leaving DMs open is broadly useful for getting feedback, especially from people who just want to discuss or provide links or private support without making the conversation public. There are folks (like me) out there who just don't like interacting publicly on hot button issues but want the option to quietly express support or provide context on disagreements. It's not just really Twitter DMs that I refer to but really any one-on-one channel where someone can provide feedback in a respectful civil way -- e.g. a Contact Me button on a blog, or something similar. That said, I do acknowledge it is not a one-size-fits-all prescription -- I merely propose it as something that does work and could work for folks, but it does depend on a variety of factors like power dynamics (as another commenter noted), who you are, your mental health, the topics you discuss, your attractiveness to trolls, etc. I'm not naive to the ugliness of people on the Internet (hey, I'm on Twitter -- such ugliness is publicly on display every single day). In order to open oneself up to private communications, the recipient naturally needs to have a mental distance to delete/report any discussion that is uncivil or abusive -- not everyone can do this, and even people who can sometimes have to shut off that channel temporarily when things get out of hand. But there are a number of people on Twitter who do allow DMs and who temporarily turn it off and then turn it back on when they feel they're ready. At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that I feel there's value in removing the performative aspect of Twitter if one's goal is to achieve higher quality discussions. Opening up DMs? One can take it or leave it -- it's as optional as exposing contact info on one's HN profile.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Yeah, so, you wrote that poorly. What you said was "this is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs". What you mean to say was "this is why opening up ones DMs is helpful to those truly interested in learning from others". Those are not at all the same statements.

by jmcqk6 6y ago

wenc 6y ago

> The point is that unless you're willing to say that people who get abused in DMs don't matter, then arguing that leaving DMs open is broadly useful is just plain false. I appreciate the nuanced response. I think it's possible to argue for the contrary position of the second clause of your statement without entailing the first clause. I do think that leaving DMs open is broadly useful for getting feedback, especially from people who just want to discuss or provide links or private support without making the conversation public. There are folks (like me) out there who just don't like interacting publicly on hot button issues but want the option to quietly express support or provide context on disagreements. It's not just really Twitter DMs that I refer to but really any one-on-one channel where someone can provide feedback in a respectful civil way -- e.g. a Contact Me button on a blog, or something similar. That said, I do acknowledge it is not a one-size-fits-all prescription -- I merely propose it as something that does work and could work for folks, but it does depend on a variety of factors like power dynamics (as another commenter noted), who you are, your mental health, the topics you discuss, your attractiveness to trolls, etc. I'm not naive to the ugliness of people on the Internet (hey, I'm on Twitter -- such ugliness is publicly on display every single day). In order to open oneself up to private communications, the recipient naturally needs to have a mental distance to delete/report any discussion that is uncivil or abusive -- not everyone can do this, and even people who can sometimes have to shut off that channel temporarily when things get out of hand. But there are a number of people on Twitter who do allow DMs and who temporarily turn it off and then turn it back on when they feel they're ready. At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that I feel there's value in removing the performative aspect of Twitter if one's goal is to achieve higher quality discussions. Opening up DMs? One can take it or leave it -- it's as optional as exposing contact info on one's HN profile.

tptacek 6y ago
Yeah, so, you wrote that poorly. What you said was "this is why people who are truly interested in learning from others on Twitter open up their DMs". What you mean to say was "this is why opening up ones DMs is helpful to those truly interested in learning from others". Those are not at all the same statements.