I’m curious what, if any, guidelines people self-impose to try and engage in a productive way online (both on Lemmy and elsewhere). “Netiquette” if you will.
A couple of rules that I think are good practices, but still see too often, are:
- don’t pile onto the most downvoted comment. Kinda like don’t feed the trolls, but it’s more about not letting yourself get rage baited. Instead, downvote them and move on.
- don’t give a non-answer to someone’s question. Ex. if someone asks how to do X, don’t answer with, “Why are you trying to do X? You shouldn’t want to do X. Do Y instead.” Instead, explain what it would take to do X, and then offer Y as a possible alternative and why it may be a better option. But assume they already know about Y, and it doesn’t fit their use-case.
For that last one, finding a thread where someone has asked the exact question you want answered, only to find a thread full of upvoted non-answers is up there with the dreaded “nvm, I figured it out - 10y ago”.
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.
- 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.
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.
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 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…
I think it flies under the commercialization radar so it isn’t worth a lot of scammers and attention getter’s time.
I try to be patient.
Downvotes are not for disagreements.
What are they for? Like/dislike?
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.
I only downvote when something is blatantly factually false or posted in bad faith (i.e. obviously trolling and I can’t think of a good-faith reason why someone would post this).
If I merely disagree with something, I write an answer explaining why, or if there already is one that I agree with, I upvote that.
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.
I disagree
-
Always assume they can and will identify you in real life. It doesn’t mean give away your real name, just act accordingly.
-
Things that are legal now may not be legal in the future. Or in other places. Online interactions are not except from this rule.
To add on to this, there’s no such thing as an alt account. You will eventually let something slip that will lead back to your main or to you. It’s not plausible, but it is possible and I act accordingly.
-
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!
Do not entertain an argument of any kind. We’re no longer in a realm where people can be reasoned or rationalized. People mostly just want you to be wrong and will break you down in trying to make you feel wrong. Block the moment someone starts swinging back at you.
If you see someone out in the open giving someone else a hard time, you can bet that they’ll do it to you so block them also.
Never go too open with someone beyond your comfort level. People online can be notorious for abusing sensitive information for ammo, personal gain or to do with as they see fit.
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.
I also follow this in offline interactions.
I’ll engage if two of the three can be answered with a “yes”.
1 - Is it kind?
2 - Is it true?
3 - Is it necessary?
For online-only conversations, assume that everything you say is public.
I wince when I hear people talk about putting everything on signal. It’s like, you know if your using Google keyboard on Android, Apple devices, servers to transfer the data, and many others are listening in.
The last paragraph feels like this
i try not to say anything i wouldnt say to that persons face if they were standing on my front porch.
i dont delete things for the same reason you cant ‘take things back’ when verbally talking to someone.
Now really, get off my porch.
I only comment when I feel I am adding something to the conversation that nobody else has added. On many contentious topics, nearly everything that can be said has already been said by someone, so I usually don’t comment on them.
Don’t talk about politics or religion if you don’t want to argue since most places are low trust and what you say will be taken in the worst possible way. Lurk for atleast 3 months before posting to get the vibe of the place. The report button exists. Don’t feed the trolls.(see the troll song for why) If you don’t fit in don’t try, no one is going to defend your world view even if its normal IRL. Bare in mind that anything said online can’t hurt you if you properly separate them for the IRL you. (E.g. repeating usernames, same email, ect will ID you.). ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING. Don’t post AI generated stuff unless its upfrontly tagged. Most things aren’t that deep and will be forgotten in 7 days.
