4 ms·

This is incredibly hyperbolic...there's no such thing as a compulsory reply. It's not your responsibility if someone reacts badly and gets upset because you don

This is incredibly hyperbolic...there's no such thing as a compulsory reply. It's not your responsibility if someone reacts badly and gets upset because you don't want to respond; they need to deal with it. Period. Read receipts really aren't this serious. They don't even warrant an entire article about the sociological implications of their implementation. It just says the other person got it, and read it. That's it. No mandates follow. Just have the personal fortitude to not respond when you don't want to respond, that should be second nature before you engage in social communication. It's really not a big deal to ignore people. You shouldn't be afraid to just because of what they'll think. It's not your problem - it wasn't before this technology, and it won't be after the next innovation.

egypturnash 13y ago
If someone gets upset AT YOU because they know you saw their message and haven't replied, then YOU need to deal with them being upset. Some people will throw giant shit fits over being ignored, so it's either interrupt your train of thought to respond RIGHT NOW before they explode at you (and possibly all over your social circles; this happened to a friend of a friend just this past week), or deal with them spraying their need for a response allll over.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  I don't agree. If someone got angry at me for ignoring them, I'd be very transparent about the fact, and then continue to ignore them. Not my responsibility. Human beings are free to continue or end social communication at any time for any reason, without being required to disclose the reason. Full stop. It's also not just an aloof principle - how often does someone who really matters message you on Facebook? You can afford to have friends and family get angry because you ignored them. It's not as if your boss will routinely ping you through informal means.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    You shouldn't assume the social dynamics of everyone else's relationships are the same as yours.
    - rglullis 13y ago
      You are right about that. On the other hand, what is the ideal technical solution for a social problem? Should all applications support some sort of option panel just to define who-can-see-if-I-read-the-message-or-not? Should we throw more technology at the problem? It seems like we are ever less capable establishing effective communication with other people, which leads to people trusting more and more for the machines to do all the interfacing for us. Instead of asking for more and more technology to hide our flaws, shouldn't we strive for this to be fixed at the social level?
      - icebraining 13y ago
        On the other hand, what is the ideal technical solution for a social problem? Should all applications support some sort of option panel just to define who-can-see-if-I-read-the-message-or-not? Should we throw more technology at the problem? Well, if you want less technology thrown, maybe we shouldn't have read receipts at all. But if we are to have them, allowing the user to control the experience doesn't seem too much to ask for. Why not just ask the user if he wants to send a receipt? Instead of asking for more and more technology to hide our flaws, shouldn't we strive for this to be fixed at the social level? I think that's an odd way to put the question. I'd rather ask if it's technology's job to enforce changes in the social dynamics, and if it's there to serve or mold the public. Maybe this is a social problem and maybe we should fix it, but I'd rather not have Facebook making that decision for us.
        rglullis 13y ago
        Adding the option would be nice, but that is not a sure way to get rid of the social "issues" that might arise. Today you have someone mad at you because you don't respond to messages, tomorrow you'll have the same person saying things like "why don't I get read confirmations from you? I get from all of my other friends. Are you hiding something from me?" > I'd rather ask if it's technology's job to enforce changes in the social dynamics I'm not saying it is. At the same time, it's not technology's job to enforce that things stay static. However, we can't deny that technological progress causes changes in the environment, which requires adaptation from people. Call it "Sociological Darwinism", if you will.
- rglullis 13y ago
  I fail to understand how this is the fault of the technology. It's no different than blaming a hammer for hitting some careless person's thumb. The person "throwing giants shit fits" is the one at fault, and the one that needs to reset their expectations at how communication works.
mjolk 13y ago
Well put. I could only read half the article before dissociating from my feigned commiseration for the sake of considering the author's opinions. This article hardly has to do with technology. What garbage from ars.

egypturnash 13y ago

If someone gets upset AT YOU because they know you saw their message and haven't replied, then YOU need to deal with them being upset. Some people will throw giant shit fits over being ignored, so it's either interrupt your train of thought to respond RIGHT NOW before they explode at you (and possibly all over your social circles; this happened to a friend of a friend just this past week), or deal with them spraying their need for a response allll over.

dylangs1030 13y ago
I don't agree. If someone got angry at me for ignoring them, I'd be very transparent about the fact, and then continue to ignore them. Not my responsibility. Human beings are free to continue or end social communication at any time for any reason, without being required to disclose the reason. Full stop. It's also not just an aloof principle - how often does someone who really matters message you on Facebook? You can afford to have friends and family get angry because you ignored them. It's not as if your boss will routinely ping you through informal means.
- icebraining 13y ago
  You shouldn't assume the social dynamics of everyone else's relationships are the same as yours.
  - rglullis 13y ago
    You are right about that. On the other hand, what is the ideal technical solution for a social problem? Should all applications support some sort of option panel just to define who-can-see-if-I-read-the-message-or-not? Should we throw more technology at the problem? It seems like we are ever less capable establishing effective communication with other people, which leads to people trusting more and more for the machines to do all the interfacing for us. Instead of asking for more and more technology to hide our flaws, shouldn't we strive for this to be fixed at the social level?
    - icebraining 13y ago
      On the other hand, what is the ideal technical solution for a social problem? Should all applications support some sort of option panel just to define who-can-see-if-I-read-the-message-or-not? Should we throw more technology at the problem? Well, if you want less technology thrown, maybe we shouldn't have read receipts at all. But if we are to have them, allowing the user to control the experience doesn't seem too much to ask for. Why not just ask the user if he wants to send a receipt? Instead of asking for more and more technology to hide our flaws, shouldn't we strive for this to be fixed at the social level? I think that's an odd way to put the question. I'd rather ask if it's technology's job to enforce changes in the social dynamics, and if it's there to serve or mold the public. Maybe this is a social problem and maybe we should fix it, but I'd rather not have Facebook making that decision for us.
      - rglullis 13y ago
        Adding the option would be nice, but that is not a sure way to get rid of the social "issues" that might arise. Today you have someone mad at you because you don't respond to messages, tomorrow you'll have the same person saying things like "why don't I get read confirmations from you? I get from all of my other friends. Are you hiding something from me?" > I'd rather ask if it's technology's job to enforce changes in the social dynamics I'm not saying it is. At the same time, it's not technology's job to enforce that things stay static. However, we can't deny that technological progress causes changes in the environment, which requires adaptation from people. Call it "Sociological Darwinism", if you will.
rglullis 13y ago
I fail to understand how this is the fault of the technology. It's no different than blaming a hammer for hitting some careless person's thumb. The person "throwing giants shit fits" is the one at fault, and the one that needs to reset their expectations at how communication works.

mjolk 13y ago

Well put. I could only read half the article before dissociating from my feigned commiseration for the sake of considering the author's opinions. This article hardly has to do with technology. What garbage from ars.