5 ms·

I did not hear 'reply guy' before joining mastodon. If you're posting short messages with a reply text box, you can expect to get replies, and the replies are

I did not hear 'reply guy' before joining mastodon. If you're posting short messages with a reply text box, you can expect to get replies, and the replies are going to reflect how your post was received, no matter how it was sent. It works both ways - I replied to a post from an artist really enraged with AI and pointed out it's no different from a human artist seeing art and incorporating it into their style; that radio dealt with this in the US by legislating 'compulsory licenses' so the outcome is unclear. The response was an immediate perma-ban from mastadon.social... this is not crypto right wing content they are unable to process anything except agreement.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
esperent 2y ago
I think it might be good for you to reflect on what this "reply guy" thing actually means, and why it is (IMO) a good idea to use it to judge your comments before replying to someone, if you care in any way about empathic online discourse. For example, the artist: their livelihood is directly threatened by AI, if not now then probably in the near future, and they are responding by posting about their fear. It's transferred into enragement because that's what gets them engagement and support, but underlying that is fear. If they were to directly post about their fear there's a good chance they'd be mocked even worse so don't judge them too harshly for this. Then along comes someone who has no skin in the game, except that they think AI is cool and something they want to be seen as an expert in. They feel it's necessary to point out to the person who is fearing for their way of life how WRONG they are. When all that person wants and needs is support. In these types of situations, when you don't directly have skin in the game, and you don't have any support to offer, it's almost always better not to reply. Make your own post proving how right you are (without linking/tooting/screen-shotting or in any way referencing the other post), and let that other person get the social connections and support that they need. Otherwise, you are Reply Guy!
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  What you're describing is an echo chamber. If that's something you want there are better ways to get it than a public, general purpose venue like Mastodon. To flip the script a little, would this "Reply Guy" standard also apply when someone with family in Israel posts support for the Israeli government's actions and gets a bunch of replies about how Israel is committing a genocide? I kind of suspect that "Reply Guy" may just be a proxy for saying "you have the wrong politics".
  - oytis 2y ago
    > public, general purpose venue like Mastodon. I guess that's what's wrong with Twitter, and what Mastodon unfortunately copied. The discussion dynamics roughly corresponds to shouting your opinions on a town square - and getting comments from passerbys. There is little expectation of privacy, and few means to create it (banning indiscreet commenters being one of them). That's why Mastodon is great for niche interests - the town in this case is small, and its inhabitants are well-aligned, but might get frustrating as you touch topics where many people can feel they are entitled to having an opinion about.
  - Yotsugi 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - esperent 2y ago
    Support the fearful artist, or leave them alone. Speak up against the person who you see as advocating for genocide. I don't think we need to over complicate this. Just do your best, you'll get it wrong sometimes but that's OK. It's a guideline for positive online discourse, not a law.
    - themaninthedark 2y ago
      I think you missed the nuance there. The hypothetical person supporting Israel has family in the country and is fearful of their family's safety. Wouldn't replying to them make you "Reply Guy"? The parent of the conversation did not say that the artist was fearful, they said "enraged" or angry. It was posited in a child comment that the anger was out of a place of fear. Depending on how you read the initial post, mood and priors, your reply to a comment can differ wildly.
rpgbr 2y ago
>If you're posting short messages with a reply text box, you can expect to get replies, and the replies are going to reflect how your post was received, no matter how it was sent. A reply text box should not be an invitation to trash other the person who posted it. This notion that if you're posting in public you're submitting yourself to harassment is pretty bad.
CM30 2y ago
Personally I supect it might be due to differing expectations as to what social media conversations are. I think those who weren't super active on forums and other old school chat systems think of them as closer to a chat between friends in a bar than between randoms on the street, and struggle to handle the idea that anyone in the world can reply at any point. But that's kinda the thing. As you said, the whole 'messages with reply text box' design is set up to encourage responses from whoever wants to respond, and social media services are closer to a soapbox in Speaker's Corner or maybe Times Square than a chat between friends at home or in a restaurant.
- bee_rider 2y ago
  It depends on the “old school forum” I think. Most phpbb style forums had limited populations, so they were more like chats with your friends at a bar; people come and go, but if you are a regular, there are some familiar faces, and you will likely be engaging with the same people in the short term, so being incredibly rude is counter-productive. Really big boards like Something Awful were the ones known for their rudeness.
  - CM30 2y ago
    I guess there was still an expectation that out of that population, anyone could reply to anyone about seemingly anything remotely relevant. I suspect a lot of people online don't see it like that anymore, and in some cases might even be surprised that anyone is responding to them at all. The rudeness is definitely the big issue with modern social media though, and as you said, that comes from how enormous these sites/services are now.
    - bee_rider 2y ago
      I think another big issue with modern twitter style mostly-one-interaction social media is the lack of a community. Even the good old forums, I recall, would have people show up and behave more poorly than was acceptable, get banned, and then you could go back to interacting with your online friends. There’s a sense that the angry person who showed up is the misanthrope, so their opinion doesn’t hurt you. Plus you have more of a model, so-and-so is grumpy and will insult me, but it’s kind of good natured or at least I know how to calibrate their ire.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

esperent 2y ago

I think it might be good for you to reflect on what this "reply guy" thing actually means, and why it is (IMO) a good idea to use it to judge your comments before replying to someone, if you care in any way about empathic online discourse. For example, the artist: their livelihood is directly threatened by AI, if not now then probably in the near future, and they are responding by posting about their fear. It's transferred into enragement because that's what gets them engagement and support, but underlying that is fear. If they were to directly post about their fear there's a good chance they'd be mocked even worse so don't judge them too harshly for this. Then along comes someone who has no skin in the game, except that they think AI is cool and something they want to be seen as an expert in. They feel it's necessary to point out to the person who is fearing for their way of life how WRONG they are. When all that person wants and needs is support. In these types of situations, when you don't directly have skin in the game, and you don't have any support to offer, it's almost always better not to reply. Make your own post proving how right you are (without linking/tooting/screen-shotting or in any way referencing the other post), and let that other person get the social connections and support that they need. Otherwise, you are Reply Guy!

AlexandrB 2y ago
What you're describing is an echo chamber. If that's something you want there are better ways to get it than a public, general purpose venue like Mastodon. To flip the script a little, would this "Reply Guy" standard also apply when someone with family in Israel posts support for the Israeli government's actions and gets a bunch of replies about how Israel is committing a genocide? I kind of suspect that "Reply Guy" may just be a proxy for saying "you have the wrong politics".
- oytis 2y ago
  > public, general purpose venue like Mastodon. I guess that's what's wrong with Twitter, and what Mastodon unfortunately copied. The discussion dynamics roughly corresponds to shouting your opinions on a town square - and getting comments from passerbys. There is little expectation of privacy, and few means to create it (banning indiscreet commenters being one of them). That's why Mastodon is great for niche interests - the town in this case is small, and its inhabitants are well-aligned, but might get frustrating as you touch topics where many people can feel they are entitled to having an opinion about.
- Yotsugi 2y ago
  [flagged]
- esperent 2y ago
  Support the fearful artist, or leave them alone. Speak up against the person who you see as advocating for genocide. I don't think we need to over complicate this. Just do your best, you'll get it wrong sometimes but that's OK. It's a guideline for positive online discourse, not a law.
  - themaninthedark 2y ago
    I think you missed the nuance there. The hypothetical person supporting Israel has family in the country and is fearful of their family's safety. Wouldn't replying to them make you "Reply Guy"? The parent of the conversation did not say that the artist was fearful, they said "enraged" or angry. It was posited in a child comment that the anger was out of a place of fear. Depending on how you read the initial post, mood and priors, your reply to a comment can differ wildly.

rpgbr 2y ago

>If you're posting short messages with a reply text box, you can expect to get replies, and the replies are going to reflect how your post was received, no matter how it was sent. A reply text box should not be an invitation to trash other the person who posted it. This notion that if you're posting in public you're submitting yourself to harassment is pretty bad.

CM30 2y ago

Personally I supect it might be due to differing expectations as to what social media conversations are. I think those who weren't super active on forums and other old school chat systems think of them as closer to a chat between friends in a bar than between randoms on the street, and struggle to handle the idea that anyone in the world can reply at any point. But that's kinda the thing. As you said, the whole 'messages with reply text box' design is set up to encourage responses from whoever wants to respond, and social media services are closer to a soapbox in Speaker's Corner or maybe Times Square than a chat between friends at home or in a restaurant.

bee_rider 2y ago
It depends on the “old school forum” I think. Most phpbb style forums had limited populations, so they were more like chats with your friends at a bar; people come and go, but if you are a regular, there are some familiar faces, and you will likely be engaging with the same people in the short term, so being incredibly rude is counter-productive. Really big boards like Something Awful were the ones known for their rudeness.
- CM30 2y ago
  I guess there was still an expectation that out of that population, anyone could reply to anyone about seemingly anything remotely relevant. I suspect a lot of people online don't see it like that anymore, and in some cases might even be surprised that anyone is responding to them at all. The rudeness is definitely the big issue with modern social media though, and as you said, that comes from how enormous these sites/services are now.
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    I think another big issue with modern twitter style mostly-one-interaction social media is the lack of a community. Even the good old forums, I recall, would have people show up and behave more poorly than was acceptable, get banned, and then you could go back to interacting with your online friends. There’s a sense that the angry person who showed up is the misanthrope, so their opinion doesn’t hurt you. Plus you have more of a model, so-and-so is grumpy and will insult me, but it’s kind of good natured or at least I know how to calibrate their ire.