I just had a weird online encounter on Bluesky that made me start wondering what people are willing to accept when it comes to negative online social contact (comments, replies)? What sorts of things are red lines for you personally?
Previously, I would accept quite a bit and would only block/mute/report somebody if it was incredibly offensive, but I would still try to explain myself, argue my point, or defuse a situation or whatever, still honestly trying to engage and make my case. I would rarely block anybody because that seemed almost like cowardice, like I was running from a fight. Since joining Bluesky however, I will not hesitate to block people for the simplest of reasons. Oftentimes if they start parroting obvious right-wing propaganda, if it’s a bot, if they’re offensive, make it personal, or if they’re obviously trolling. As soon as a person starts calling names or makes accusations about the person themselves and strays away from the topic at hand, that’s kind of become my personal red line. If you don’t know me and you make it personal right away, we’re done.
To give some background, my conversation that prompted this was over books vs audiobooks (it’s been a subject for weeks on bluesky). I was responding to a librarian’s post saying that it’s a pointless debate, books are books, doesn’t matter if you read a book or listen to an audiobook. I replied, agreeing with her point, saying that the experience of taking in a story is what we’re doing, whether it’s a regular book with text, picture book, audiobook, movie, or whatever. One format or another may have trade-offs, but you’re still absorbing the story, it’s still a similar experience you’re getting. Not particularly controversial, just adding input, just whatever.
A reply came in from another person, somewhat combative from the start, not particularly long, but there was edge to it I could tell (“So what are you saying? Reading is reading, listening is listening” or something like that). I assumed they wanted more clarification (thus the ‘?’), so wrote back just kind of explaining how media formats are different, our brain takes in the information differently, but that one format or the other wasn’t better, just different. Again, not directed at the person, just discussing the idea.
They replied back with something fairly negative, really sounding like they wanted to start an argument and directing it personally at me as if I was the one being argumentative for replying to their question. Without hesitation I just blocked them. I was like, I’m not going to waste my time engaging with this person (though I apparently will waste my time posting about it on Lemmy). I’m not really afraid of getting feelings hurt or anything, call me whatever you want, but if it’s an obvious negative experience they’re trying to goad me into, I’m not going to engage, I’m just going to walk away.
It’s an interesting thing that’s happening on Bluesky, because that’s the overall behavior that seems to be encouraged on there that I haven’t really seen elsewhere, don’t engage with obviously negative people, it’s not worth it. Is that what we should be striving for, starving the trolls and trying to encourage polite, civil discourse?
Text communication is always going to be a challenge for human beings. We are just not evolved for conversation where you can’t see a face or at least hear a voice. It’s a constant minefield, the potential for misunderstanding is almost insurmountable. To pull off a fruitful discussion by text, especially with multiple participants and group dynamics in play, and have people learn things and feel that they’ve had a decent hearing - that really counts as a triumph, in my view. It is absolutely the exception, not the rule.
The best way to do it? In my view: to take an almost autistic approach. Stick as rigidly as possible to facts and to the topic. Assume good faith, even when it’s hard. Steer clear of humor and second degree. Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that the most civil, productive virtual communities (Hacker News, for example) are filled with IT types for whom these qualities come a bit more naturally.
Another rule I have: no swearing. At best it looks infantile, at worst it it just raises the temperature pointlessly. (Personally I often stop reading a comment when I see the word “fucking” - this is not a serious contribution that I need bother with.)
And I’ve also learned to try to avoid the word “you”. This BTW is a standard trick used to encourage civil in-person debate, for example in parliaments where people will address each other using the third person or via the speaker. It’s also why so many languages have formal words for “you”, intended to increase distance. It turns out the word “you” functions as a sort of low-level trigger for humans, a bit like eye contact for so many other animals. Best avoided.
As I was saying: text communication is just hard. I think we all need to make more allowances for this fact.
That “You” part was specifically something I was thinking about before I wrote this. It sounded odd when I first started thinking about it, but that often becomes the point when the other person starts making it personal. It’s one thing if a person says it as an example, “Would you be ok if this or this happened?” But if they’re personally directing it at me, whether name calling or accusing or something more confrontational, that’s where it usually crosses over.