3 ms·

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. Hu

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.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

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.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]