Do you have any rules you try to follow when engaging with others online?
-
You should read False Witnesses, it explains a phenomena you're touching on here. People normally don't actually care if what they believe is true, they want to feel virtuous and license themselves to believe the unbelievable in order to do so. I think you'll find the essay interesting.
-
Spot-on with how and why to engage and when to drop.
-
I saw somebody suggest that the voting buttons should be used to indicate whether the comment benefits the discussion or not.
I suppose the same would be true of the original post; does the post benefit the community.
For example, posting a blog of why Mitsubishi is the best car maker to a photography forum is a downvote, true or not. Posting that veganism isn't a sustainable lifestyle to a vegan sub is an upvote, but you'd better be ready for some backlash.
-
The last paragraph feels like this
-
treat everyone as if they're actual people behind the screen. because they are
-
Well.....there was a time when that was true. Now we've got a mostly dead internet. But yeah, if you're going to bother engaging because you believe they're real, then treat them like a person.
-
kinda forgot there are bots, even on lemmy
-
I misread the title as edging
Ive got nothing really to contribute, just know that I'm here rounding out the left-hand of the bell curve for the rest of you filthy animals!
-
I think Lemmy has the capacity to have even more bots, because moderation is so inconsistent and underfunded. The big sites have the resources to fight bots, but ironically have an incentive to embrace them because it reflects well on DAU. IMO the only thing keeping bots off lemmy is a lack of ROI. Great, you spent how much to influence the views of a minuscule userbase in the corner of the internet no one goes to?
Still, it does feel sometimes like our share of braindead group think is higher than it should be...
-
Downvotes are for low-quality content, bad-faith content, etc.
Most bright-line example of this is: if OP asks "what's your favourite fruit" and somebody says "bananas," don't downvote it just because you dislike bananas.
It gets harder when somebody says something you disagree with politically, but argues it well and in good faith. I would still not downvote in this circumstance.
For an example of when I would downvote: if OP asks "do bananas contain potassium?" and commenter says "No, only potatoes contain potassium." -- this is low quality content, they could have confirmed their answer with a quick google search.
-
- Read the room. If it looks like a glorified echo chamber you'll get downvoted to oblivion. If you try to debate you might get banned. This is usually the case with news and political groups.
- Don't get pulled into pointless fights with trolls. You can usually spot them because they try to take the discussion on a radical detour or pointless pick a fight. Don't let yourself get baited.
- Don't tell people to "google it". They are probably looking for other's insights. If you can't answer their question or add to it then don't respond.
- If a topic is upsetting and you feel the urge to rant it is best to just walk away from it.
- Try to take the high road and be polite even if they aren't. Win by being nice, others will notice it.
- Finally, if someone is just totally unreasonable or even sounds nuts don't engage them. Block them if necessary.
-
I think it flies under the commercialization radar so it isn't worth a lot of scammers and attention getter's time.
-
If it is a controversial subject reread your comment before posting to see how it could be misinterpreted. People will automatically assume something negative so you have to write very clearly and defensively.
-
Dedicate no more than two or three replies unless you're absolutely sure that the person is engaging in good faith. The single biggest tip-off that they are not is that they do not engage with the core of your case, and instead do any number of other things: (1) snipe at edge cases or other minutea (2) change the subject (3) move the goalposts (4) etc.
-
-
Point taken. It was probably a bad example. I was trying to find an example of something that would be an unpopular topic rare hat would ultimately benefit the community.
