I want to clarify something. Establishing boundaries is okay, and a microblog can be very personal. A microblog can be a safe space for someone, but also a brand account that has everyone screaming at it. Establishing boundaries on an account that's personal is more akin to establishing a boundary as a person. Some people get harassed. That's just a reality. If someone is triggered by constant corrections because of harassment, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to establish that boundary. But that's up to them to establish, not to assume everyone else would or should know and that people are evil if they don't.
Microblogs are different, they can be very personal.
A reply guy is a /kind/ of troll, and identifying certain tactics is important.
The thing is that there are reply guys who are in it just to be a nuisance. My criticism is that they aren't trying to establish boundaries with innocent people, and that they resort to basically bullying people for trying to be nice, and have a conversation.
I don't fully agree with the notion that a microblog is a third place like, say, Lemmy or Reddit is. A profile can be incredibly personal, and there can be tools used to limit who sees it for that reason. A profile can either be a massive one with a massive audience, or one with a few of your friends following. Those both are very different. The third place would arguably the instance the user is posting on, and those have rules and expectations. Federated conversations are very different. It's more akin to a town full of third places. In the streets, you need to establish boundaries with people you're having a conversation with if you don't know them.
One of the traits of ASD is unintentionally offending people. That doesn’t mean people have to accept every rude thing an autistic person does without complaint, and they’re ablist if they don’t. It means you should be understanding and clearly explain boundaries. That’s exactly what the original post did.
No it didn't, it tried to explain an invisible boundary like it's a normal thing for everyone and everywhere when it isn't.
Yeah, it’s annoying that some rules are usually unwritten because everyone else already knows them. It would be more annoying if everything anyone ever wrote had “Please don’t respond with advice or criticism” at the end.
...how is that annoying? People write little messages in content warnings all the time, and like I mentioned in the OP you can stick it in your bio and write it once. Not everyone knows them anyways, because even in the Fediverse that kind of thing can differ a lot. I honestly feel like you didn't really bother to read my entire post, because your response doesn't seem to be really addressing the criticisms I made in the post and their reasoning.
This rule has been written down now, clearly and very politely. Maybe you or I didn’t know it before but we do now. If you refuse to listen and continue correcting strangers on social media that isn’t autism, it’s just being intentionally rude.
Again, the OP is giving advice for interaction on the network /generally/. They aren't just talking about themselves. Again, I feel like you didn't really read what I said, because a lot of what you're saying is a strawman.
Traditionally, a "reply guy" is someone who replies to a specific person or group of people over and over with excessive corrections/"just asking questions"/other tactics with the intent to harass/waste time/make people angry. It's a kind of troll that's typically on Twitter.
>>So, something I've noticed on the #Fediverse is that there are these reply guys who sometimes don't quite get why they're being called out for being reply guys. No worries, though! I've got a little tip for you: >> >>It's generally best to hold off on replying to someone's posts with unsolicited advice or "corrections." While you might have good intentions and think you're being helpful, trust me when I say that most people just want to express themselves without receiving random advice from strangers. >> >>Of course, there are a couple of exceptions to this rule: >> >>1. If the original poster is openly asking for advice or help, then it's perfectly fine to chime in. >>2. If you've built a good rapport with the original poster, and they've shown that they're open to receiving advice, then go ahead and share your thoughts. >> >>Now, I know some folks might be tempted to point out that I'm giving unprompted advice right now. >> >>Well, you're absolutely right! However, the key distinction is that I'm not replying to someone else's post. To truly be a reply guy, you'd have to reply directly to someone else 🙂 >> >>Feel free to give all the advice you want on your own space. Just remember to be mindful when stepping into someone else's space unannounced. > >Honestly this mindset is extremely harmful for people who suck at social cues. A lot of "reply guys" on the Fediverse are just autistic people with special interests who see something they care about and want to talk about it. That may involve corrections, or suggestions for, say, what software they might like if Linux isn't working for them, which is just a way for them to talk about their interests while helping other people. > >People immediately jump to insulting them as "reply guys" without even explaining what the rules of conduct are. Clearly "never give advice to anyone ever unless they explicitly ask" is way too broad, because in a lot of places advice is implicitly expected, even in the Fediverse. More often than not, that kind of thing is perfectly okay and accepted, and they're insulting people for something they didn't know was an issue. They're being grouped in with people who constantly correct and start shit with people in replies to harass them. That's a completely different thing from someone trying to use a topic they care about to help people and start a conversation. > >I find it hard to find this take to be in good faith a lot of the time when they don't give any realistic advice to actually discriminate between people who find certain things okay or not. I think if these things are an issue, it should be up to the poster to communicate CLEARLY what their boundaries are for interaction. > >One time I saw art, and said something along the lines of "Literally the only thing wrong with this is a [tiny insignificant thing], otherwise it's perfect." They interpreted it as me giving unsolicited advice, but I was using the tiny insignificant thing to highlight how good the art was and how little flaws there were. I explained that to them, and luckily they were understanding. But sadly not everyone gets that opportunity before they get blasted or insulted for stepping on a landmine. > >If they had said "please don't bring up issues with the art, I have a hard time with that" in their bio we could've avoided that entire interaction and me inadvertently making them feel like shit. That's far more productive than putting ableist expectations until autistic people are bullied into not being able to have any interactions on the network. > >Having these invisible rules that constantly change, where people give completely useless and unrealistic advice that isn't actually able to be applied to anything, that's ableism. I'm not saying it's always intentional to be clear. Anecdotally, there's a lot more autistic nerds here than in other places (hence the example I used with software) so that kind of behaviour is more widely normalised here than on, say, Twitter. > >There are people who do clearly establish these boundaries. Usually it's a small blurb on their profile with something like "Please don't give me unsolicited advice." That's all it takes! If people aren't respecting your boundaries, then I think that's totally valid to complain. But don't pretend like those boundaries have been set up because everyone should Just Know things.
For me, I scroll so I can peak at the bottom of the video and wait for it to cut elsewhere.
A quick way to break eye contact is to scroll.
YouTubers Stop Staring Into My Soul With Your Face Smooshed Against The Camera As You Talk About Computers Challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Arachnids also include scorpians and ticks, so spiders it makes sense humans evolved that way. Perhaps some proto-spider was a lot more dangerous.
Though, jumping spiders are pretty chill and what got me to be less afraid of spiders. They're tiny, they're adorable, they're really friendly, and for some reason they didn't trigger the same arachnophobic response in me. I have a theory that perhaps jumping spiders fed on ticks and other bugs that ancestors of ours might've had, and so we became less afraid of them. Spiders cooperating with other species isn't new, such as the dotted humming frog.
You missed the entire point of what I was saying.
I’m all for allowing your kid to access the groups that make them feel valued and included, but at this junction phones and social in school is more harmful than helpful.
In the article, they're talking about how social media affects students both in and out of school. Phones should be allowed in school as long as it isn't disruptive to other students. Banning phones will just make people hide them more, instead of more openly using them and allowing discussions about how it might be harming them. Using your phone in a way that might harm your education in class is usually a sign of disengagement, lack of interest, or apathy to education, whether or not you have a phone. If anything, those same students will just do more disruptive things (talking, moving around, etc.) Banning phones is merely banning a symptom of the problem. I've experienced this first hand. Classes with students who didn't give a shit? They just kept to themselves on their phone. Classes with those same students that had phone buckets? I had to leave because of my sensory issues, they were that loud.
I’m all for allowing your kid to access the groups that make them feel valued and included, but at this junction phones and social in school is more harmful than helpful.
I strongly disagree. The people who really need their phones should have them. They shouldn't be punished because of a crumbling education system failing other people. If a student is using their phone because they don't want the education they're being offered, that's ultimately their decision, you can't help students who don't want to help themselves. Listening to those students and funding programs where they might actually be engaged would do much more than that. Practising moderation and restraint is also an incredibly important life skill to learn at an age like that. You can't do that if not having your phone depends on external factors.
Most of the harm from social media happens outside of class anyways.
People in education have a tendency of blaming everybody but themselves. Slapping a band-aid on the system and staff that fails students is going to create more and more problems down the line, and won't even help in the short term.
As much as mainstream social media is bad, there are online communities that are strictly necessary for some groups. Banning social media would stop closeted queer youth from participating in communities that would support them. Asking your homophobic parents about queer sexuality, for example, is a one-way ticket to getting your ass out on the street. Asking a community of fellow queer people anonymously is more viable. As toxic as social media can be, it can also be a refuge for good people who need to escape the real world and the consequences of it.
It really is an all-or-nothing approach. Either we make systems that are effective enough to stop everyone, or make them ineffective enough that they can be bypassed.
We should be helping young people navigate, and have a healthy relationship with it. The technology reflects and caters to the negative parts of the society it exists in. The best thing we can do is make the world better in the first place. Body-negativity isn't here because social media decided it must exist, it's because an algorithm decided that appealing to the existing negative thoughts and beliefs of people gets engagement. The only other way to deal with this problem is to dismantle capitalism so that organisations that run these platforms aren't perpetually seeking profit at all costs.
The Fediverse is dominated by hackers, who by their nature are incompatible with existing systems such as capitalism.
I'm using a selfhosted version of MLMYM, which has a demo instance running at mlmym.org. I can't seem to log in, both on my self-hosted version and the demo site. A lemmy.world account of mine does work, however. Am I maybe getting caught in some bot filter?
It's an absolutely massive instance that's a net negative for the Fediverse. It completely defeats the purpose of federation. The Mastodon devs used to drive people to smaller instances but decided they wanted to be /the/ instance. They made themselves a default in the app. At around the same time other instances started getting a crap ton of spam from them that ate up a bunch of moderator's time on smaller instances. The Fediverse only works in regards to moderation because there is less users per admin, but mastodon.social doesn't have that advantage. A bunch of people defederated from them as a result which was a good thing for the instances that did it. They failed pretty hard at communicating during this time as well.
Having one instance hold a large part of the network is bad for everybody involved. Defederating from monoliths is a healthy thing for networks to do. Building your own web beats any algorithm, can't do that if you're already federating with 99% of people.
I noticed that with Mullvad it's also doing that, I think it might be an anti-spam system?
I think that GrapheneOS could really benefit from some small options to tweak the system, such as fonts and emoji. Root bypasses the security model, so reducing the need to rely on root would be a good harm reduction strategy. Sort of like how sandboxed Google Play Services reduces the harm for people who need to rely on it. Maybe even upstream could accept it.
This is a good thing. We don't want another mastodon.social situation.
