3 ms·

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

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 3y 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 3y ago
[flagged]
esperent 3y 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 3y 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.
  - oytis 3y ago
    > Wouldn't replying to them make you "Reply Guy"? Why not? I think discretion is needed in both cases. I, for one, am rather pro-Israel, but I wouldn't necessarily tell that to a Palestinian sharing their anger online.

oytis 3y 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 3y ago

[flagged]

esperent 3y 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 3y 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.
- oytis 3y ago
  > Wouldn't replying to them make you "Reply Guy"? Why not? I think discretion is needed in both cases. I, for one, am rather pro-Israel, but I wouldn't necessarily tell that to a Palestinian sharing their anger online.