@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl
Hey! You disagreed with what I said in my post! I never invited you to do that! I never even invited you to talk to me. You nasty stalker. Arrrghhhh!!! (see what I did there?)

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl I sure do. Do you want me to block you? I’m sure you can see the difference. 😜

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl I think your prescribing the metaphor, the purpose and the social norm, here. And that’s exactly the problem. We need to find ways for multiple metaphors, purposes and social norms to be acceptable without leading to expectation mismatch.

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl
If someone gets in an elevator, and gets grumpy at anyone who tells them it's only good for going up and down, for "prescribing the metaphor, the purpose and the social norm" *shrug*, they're going to have a bad time in elevators, and so is anyone who finds themselves in an elevator with them. Not sure if anything can be done about that.

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl Some people in elevators like to stare into empty space and others don’t mind a little chat. To know the difference and act accordingly is how we increase good times in elevators.

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl LOL I get the point you are trying to make. I guess I can only refer back to my "the medium is the message" comment, and maybe @Wolf480pl 's comment here
https://pinafore.social/statuses/100182590299687034
If a stranger talked to me in an elevator (or on the bus), I would be surprised. Not so in a public bar, especially when there's a band playing. Horses for courses.

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl I understand the point about the medium is the message, about the affordances the current user interface provides. I just don’t see the benefit of chatting up people at bars when they are grumpy and clearly not interested. There is nothing to be gained. A thumbs up might be appreciated but more than that? Dubious. But much also depends on sending the right signals, of course.

@strypey @david_ross @Wolf480pl I certainly know the exasperation when I perceive somebody as friendly and inviting and then I start commenting on their stuff and they suddenly turn around and complain about it. “WTF!?” But even then, it’s best to just move on. Insisting on my right to speak but they’ll just say I have no right to be heard and we’d both be right to no avail.

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl I think this is kind of missing the mark too. I've never seen anyone object to being asked to "untag me" or whatever. The problems start when someone reacts to a reply their don't like with something like 'you have no right to say that here' which is a) objectively wrong, and b) some of the richest #TrollFood I can think of. IMHO such people are self-abusing when they do this *shrug* #NotMyProblem

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl This is especially so when they proceed to try to *defend* the claim that the other person should have known not reply to that post with that comment (#ShouldHaveBeenPsychic). This is bamboozling to commenters whose interest was genuine, as well as essentially laying out a trail of bread crumbs for trolls to follow to find rich pickings #EpicFail

@strypey I also don't like this. Which is why I support @Wolf480pl point of adding a checkbox or some other kind of UI feature to make this more explicit, be it "no comments" or whatever.

@kensanata @Wolf480pl if this then hardcodes an inability for that @address to be used in replies to that post, sure. In a way that's respected across the whole #fediverse. Otherwise it's just setting people up to be disappointed at a whole new level (implicit UI promises).

@strypey @kensanata
What do you think about the "don't @ me" emoji?

@Wolf480pl @strypey I had seen it exactly once and was confused by it because I didn’t recognize anything. When I then started to replay and saw the “no_at” emoji name I got it but I felt it was far from obvious.

@kensanata @strypey
Same here.

IMO the idea is good, but the implementation is bad.
It being an emoji makes it obvious for the OP that it will not be enforced by the software, but it's very non-obvious what it means for a person replying.

@strypey I do agree with the assessment that by putting things on the platform, these people expose themselves to just the kind of drive-by comments they then object to. And while I respect their wish to not get comments from me, I do roll my eyes in these situations. Perhaps we'd all love to see a certain kind of public and are sometimes disappointed in the actual people we do meet.

@karl @strypey But the possibility of public response does not invalidate other wishes. You definitely have the right write a comment, referring to their public post. But do you have a right to mention them, to direct unwanted attention on them, to appear in their threads? I want to move beyond a legalistic argument (yes it is legal) or a UI argument (yes it is afforded) to a culture of politeness and appropriateness. How appropriate is it? It depends!

@karl @strypey so yes, it should be easy, but Homo sapiens developed a huge brain just to deal with other humans, and that’s because it isn’t easy.

@kensanata @karl @strypey
IMO you have the right to appear in their threads, but not to mention them.
If they attempt to sway the public opinion, you have the right to have your counterargument show next to their post.
If they're just venting, then maybe you don't, but it's hard to tell. But making a vent post followers-only would mitigate the risk of getting unwanted comments, and clearly signify that you are _not_ attempting to sway public opinion.

@kensanata @karl this is fascinating. Because the other side of it, do you have a right to comment without giving credit the originator of the discourse? In academic discourse this is beyond just being rude, it's plagiarism, and is the closest thing the #IvoryTower has to hanging offence. Again, once someone specifically *asks* to be untagged/ not mentioned (and not just vaguely hints at it), fair enough, but I've never seen anyone disrespect that.

@strypey @karl I guess you could link to the conversation because that gives credit and allows verification without intrigue? After all in academia you don’t actually the people you cite, you just put their name and a “link” in your bibliography and point readers there.

@kensanata @karl in print sure, because a citation is all the medium allows, but people often include an email address in a citation if they can find one. In a digital version they'll supply both a link to the original and an email address. Because feedback is the lifeblood of academic discourse. It's why they publish, and if they don't get it, they perish. It sets up a very different habit of expectations #PublishOrPerish

@strypey Sure, but a mention on Mastodon is not the equivalent of putting their email there. The notification mechanism makes it a lot more like putting their email there and then actually mailing them: “you got cited!” And then the metaphor breaks down when we consider that on social media, not everybody wants to be associated with everybody else. We’re not in academia and each is trying to find their niche audience.

@kensanata "The notification mechanism makes it a lot more like putting their email there and then actually mailing them: “you got cited!”"
In academia this would be considered a feature, not a bug. Many of the digital repos for academic papers include features for being emailed when you get cited. It's something scholars find very exciting (see what I did there)!

@kensanata I get that social media isn't academia, but I guess I'm still struggling to understand why anyone would choose a federated microblog tool if they didn't expect and want the same kind of massively multi-player meta-conversation. Again (coz I notice you fail to read it in when I don't specify), asking to be untagged is fine and ought to be respected (and in my experience, it always is).

@karl I read that as “these people are using social media wrong and they should be using a blog instead” – and I think you’re wrong. 😀

@karl That last point is definitely an issue.

@kensanata maybe what we're seeing in some cases is people who are here to take offence and spin drama out of it, rather than being genuinely upset; ie a special case of trolling? As with any trolling, it could be hard to tell apart from genuine users having a bad day (or whatever).

@kensanata I really do think some of it falls out of confusion about the nature of the medium though. When instances register URLs like "vampires.club", and describe it a place for vampires to chat with link-minded others, and users sign up having no clue about #Mastodon or the #fediverse, it must really throw them to suddenly find themselves in a digital #BurningMan madhouse ;)

@kensanata @strypey @david_ross
IMO when the person complains about it, it's too late.

@Wolf480pl @kensanata @david_ross this is true of almost everything in life. Unless the complaint focuses on how to prevent analogous situations in the future, it's inherently a waste of their energy. This I why I often suspect it's not really in good faith, but a status game/ power play in the form of a subtle guilt trip

@kensanata @david_ross @Wolf480pl at a house party, or a music festival, or a tech conference, striking up conversations with strangers ("mixing" or "networking") is the norm, and it's the person who has a meltdown about being approach at all who's being rude. The right to leave a conversation still applies, of course. The problem seems to boil down to mismatched expectations about what kind of social space the #fediverse is.

@strypey @kensanata @david_ross
so some people think conventions like Chaos Communicaton Congress are for having conversations with strangers, while other people think it's about watching the official talks?
That would explain some of the recent drama...

@strypey @kensanata @david_ross
I think there's a difference between friendly chit-chat with strangers vs having a serious discussion on academic rules.

@strypey @kensanata
I think this is the campfire vs puzzle solving that @david_ross was talking about.