2d ago

Do you have any rules you try to follow when engaging with others online?

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".

47 comments

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 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.

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.
I can get behind the spirit of this, but often times this is caused by people taking the wrong first steps to solve an issue and then getting lost in the weeds while asking for the solution to where they're stuck, rather than asking about the original problem. In this case, usually both X and Y are bad answers, and asking why they aren't doing Y can elucidate more about the whole situation.
- While I agree you do run into XY problems alot I find another way is have them explain their use-case first. By just asking what is your ultimate goal you are trying to achieve. Then after knowing that answering their question to the best of my ability. Otherwise you waste their time ans yours answering the Y. Had one this week customer wanted to remotely view files stored in his local server. Company built out secure vpn and file server for said files. Customer then asks how does the public access these files. Customer really wanted was a website to download documents or public use.
  
  I think answering questions in the context of work is different, because then, yeah I agree, your goal isn't to answer their question, it's to solve their problem.
  But if someone makes a thread asking "How do I serve a fileshare publicly", I think it's better to answer with something like, "Open this config, change these options, open these ports in your network, and restart these services. NOW, why do you want to do this? Because it might be a bad idea...etc." Assume that their usecase is private info, and that they are asking the question they mean to ask. Because when someone else who knows they need to do X comes searching for this thread later, you won't be able to ask about their use case.
  I also made this adjustment in another comment, but I think at a minimum, if you're offering Y because you don't know how to do X, don't say "you shouldn't want to do X", instead be clear and say "I don't know how to do X, but Y might be an option for you". If no one reading the thread actually knows how to do X, then that's also useful info.
- Yes, the XY Problem (or in this case, the YX Problem).
  I think it's still better to abide by the rule as I wrote it, because IMO it is actually more elucidating for someone to be able to explain how to do X as it is written, and then provide Y as a possibly preferable alternative, than for someone who maybe really doesn't know how to do X just propose Y instead.
  It might even be the case that Y is the solution OP should be asking for, but 10y later when someone else finds that same thread, and Y isn't an option for them, the thread is much less useful.
  At a bare minimum, don't say "you shouldn't want to do X", either explain how to do X, or be clear about the fact that you don't know how.

If you have to absolutely, positively, immediately, reply right now for reasons .. don't.
- Applies to emails, texts, pretty much any form of communication. Wait 20 minutes minimum before hitting send.

The main rule I try to adhere to:
If I think someone who responded to my comment did not read the whole thing, I should not reply.
- Same goes for people actively misreading your content in the worst possible way obviously just to start some shit.
  This has been a plague on reddit.

Maybe

If I've tagged them as "DNE" (don't engage), then trust I tagged them for a reason and don't engage.
- Stupid question: Can I tag people here?
  
  Lemmy itself doesn't support user tags, but some of the clients like voyager, do.

For political disagreements, be wary of fruitless endeavors. 20 replies back and forth are pointless. Most of the time, my goal isn't to change that person's mind; it's to be the voice of disagreement so that others can either be exposed to my views and their rationalization or so that others who silently agree with me can see that these views aren't unpopular. After enough time passes, I tend to state that I'm disengaging because it's no longer going to catch the eye of many of these people.
In general, be courteous. Most people aren't assholes. Some people will have a bad day and maybe will take it out in you, but gently asking them to be courteous and not take their bad day out on you usually spurs some introspection and improves the interaction. If it doesn't, then they're really not mature enough to further engage with. Respect yourself and don't allow anybody excessive opportunity to ruin your day.
- Spot-on with how and why to engage and when to drop.

Ted Lasso rule: Be curious, not judgemental. I try to give people the chance to explain themselves. I assume good faith. Even if I'm pretty sure I'm right, I allow for the possibility that I'm not or that I'm missing some relevant information.

Plenty, though it's a general thing rather than some rigid code. And these are my rules, not necessarily things that everyone should be doing. When it comes to that, Wheaton's law covers everything well enough lol.
First, in full honesty, I sometimes will break my rules and engage with assholes, trolls, or other bad actors out of sheer boredom to entertain myself, and I'll often throw all my other rules out the window if they're enough of an asshole.
So, my number one rule is honesty. I refuse to lie. For one, I've come to value the freedom of being exactly who I am too much to fuck around. For another, I'm too fucking old to keep track of bullshit, so I'd fuck up eventually anyway. Now, I'm not saying I'll never wrap a truth up in fancy clothes for entertainment sake, I enjoy telling stories for my own fun and I'll tell them in a way that pleases me. The facts are always true, though the way they're expressed might make it seem otherwise.
Like, I sometimes break out stories about my friend Spider. If I just say that he mouthed off in a bar and got me into a fight, that's fucking boring. If I say that he pulled out his penis because the was worried he broke it, that's less boring, but telling the story in one line is a waste when describing said penis is so much more fun. Same with my stories about my cousin, Fucking Ryan. I'm not ruining a good story by writing it down using minimalism, I'm going to tart that bitch up and make it a ride, you dig? It's all true, but if I say Fucking Ryan stole a hamburger from me, that's not as entertaining as describing the ketchup leaking from his pocket.
Second, if I choose to answer a question, I try to answer it to the best of my knowledge, without too much in the way of judging that it was asked. You ask about how to tell if you broke your dick, the answer is going to be about how you tell, with no more than a return question about why you need to know. That is negated when the person asking is a douche, where I will give them shit about them being a douche, but I'll still answer.
Third, I try to remember that I'm talking to other humans. Sometimes the bots and ai generated stuff makes that hard. Other times, I fall into the trap of reacting to what's on the screen rather than the fact that a human put it there. This is the rule I fail to follow the most. A lot of the time, that doesn't matter because humans are assholes, and some of the shit they say is worth some backlash. But I try to take a second and think about what might have caused someone to say something shitty that is out of character even if I don't know them.
Which leads into the fourth. There's a limit on how many slaps I'll go into a slap fight. I figure that if I can't either redirect the person into a real conversation in three or four comments that also include not taking their bullshit, it isn't worth continuing. That means that I may tell someone they're acting like an asshole, but I'll also be trying to get them to break out of it and move on. Believe it or not, it works. Not all the time, but it amazes me how often just telling someone they're being a dick, and that I'm just another human trying to interact makes them stop and think for a second. Works best with folks that are already attacking an idea instead of a person, but are just being dicks to the person as a side thing.
What it all boils down to is extensions of Wheaton's law. Ways to not be a dick, or to be less of a dick.

The Golden Rule. Maybe even the Platinum Rule if I’m in a good mood.
- I had actually decided I'm not a fan of the Golden Rule for...reasons, and this is actually the first time I've heard that those reasons are referred to as the Platinum Rule. TIL.

47 comments