3 ms·
> In the real world we signal our approval of a conversation by either engaging or walking away What does 'engaging' mean, exactly? You also signal your disapp
by ljm 5y ago
> In the real world we signal our approval of a conversation by either engaging or walking away
What does 'engaging' mean, exactly? You also signal your disapproval by engaging. If I tell someone to go fuck themselves after they tried to get me alone in a dark alley... I engaged with them, I didn't walk away with a tacit approval of their attempted assault and say I remained disengaged.
If someone creeps on me online and I tell them to fuck off, the creepy cunt they are... then I engaged with them too. If I didn't engage and instead walked away, I might have a stalker to deal with because I never said no.
`engage` is doing too much work and, in my mind, it's an inhuman term. You're applying the logic of a toilet cubicle to a human.
- holler 5y agos/engage/talked to? whether you tell them they're delightful or a creepy perp, you're _talking_ to them. You're expending energy which is the opposite of a up/down vote or a like which requires no energy and doesn't add (or subtract) anything from the conversation. Of course as you point out, not all conversations are positive ones, but I like the idea of optimizing for more conversation in general. Also I don't claim that it's going to work out or that all voting is bad (in general on HN it seems useful), but I like the idea of trying something different.