Below is an early attempt at an “Rules for Online Sanity” list. I’d love to hear what you think I missed.
- Reward your “enemies” when they agree with you, exhibit good behavior, or come around on an issue. Otherwise they have no incentive to ever meet you halfway.
- Accept it when people apologize. People should be allowed to work through ideas and opinions online. And that can result in some messy outcomes. Be forgiving.
- Sometimes people have differing opinions because they considered something you didn’t.
- Take a second.
- There's always more to the story. You probably don't know the full context of whatever you're reading or watching.
- If an online space makes more money the more time you spend on it, use sparingly.
- Judge people on their actions, not their words. Don’t get outraged over what people said. Get outraged at what they actually do.
- Try to give people the benefit of the doubt, be charitable in how you read people’s ideas.
- Don’t treat one bad actor as representative of whatever group or demographic they belong to.
- Create the kind of communities and ideas you want people to talk about.
- Sometimes, there are bad actors that don’t play by the rules. They should be shunned, castigated, and banned.
- You don’t always have the moral high ground. You are not always right.
- Block and mute quickly. Worry about the bubbles that creates later.
- There but for the grace of God go you.
In regards to your balanced approach you maybe interested in Ian Guest’s work exploring Twitter to support professional development. It provides some novel insights and questions.
Knowing that you don’t read my blog, in am intrigued what your collection of ideas looks like in a world without social media? Maybe that is a good place to start?
As any serious blog consumer can attest, a carefully curated blog feed, covering niches that matter to your life, can provide substantially more value than the collectivist ping-ponging of likes and memes that make up so much of social media interaction.
Monetizing an audience on social media is not a particularly new idea. What sets these fledgling artists and producers apart is the extent to which they sell every feature on every app: likes, comments, reposts, retweets, faves, Story shares, native Instagram posts, Snapchat shout-outs, all offered on a sliding scale based on how much you’re willing to pay to keep them up. Any social-media interaction is for sale, as long as someone is willing to pay.
Noting your concerns with Mastodon, I am wondering if you think Micro.blog fixes any of this, especially with its use of feeds and webmentions etc
Both of these pieces managed to capture something that has left me feeling uneasy of late. I am not adverse to devices and technology, but wonder where the conversation is associated with it all? That was the point in my post on being informed. The latest ‘black box’ is the introduction of the smart speaker into the classroom. The discussion seems to be about what it might afford, with little consideration of any other implications.
My wondering is whether turning off the behavioral aspects is enough or if the devices are in fact tainted to the core? This is something that I touched on in my response to Dai Barnes.
have we become so subtly conditioned by digital technology that we don’t see what’s been happening to us? Have we been conditioned to accept a world governed by “smart” tech, trading convenience and cheap bliss to the point where we become a bit like machines ourselves?
So what does a Like mean here on Scripting News? It's a way to tell me that you saw what I wrote and found it likeable. It doesn't mean you necessarily agree. You're also registering your presence to other people who read this blog.
I don’t think centralised services have better UX. All they have is a monopoly.