Advertise here with Carbon Ads

This site is made possible by member support. 💞

Big thanks to Arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech support.

When you buy through links on kottke.org, I may earn an affiliate commission. Thanks for supporting the site!

kottke.org. home of fine hypertext products since 1998.

Beloved by 86.47% of the web.

🍔  💀  📸  😭  🕳️  🤠  🎬  🥔

100000% this: I Hate The Way We Talk Online. “Let’s discuss topics without feeling the need to win a non-existent argument. Hot takes? No. Engage with nuance. Show the grace you would extend offline to those you meet on these virtual streets.”

Fave · 13

Comments  4

Sort by: thread — thread . latest . faves

Jason KottkeMOD

This type of thing is exactly what the KDO community guidelines are aimed towards limiting. Take these two recent replies to the post on Fredkin's paradox. The first from Bluesky:

How is that anything different from Buridan's Ass, that "paradox" has been around for over two-thousand years

Spot on for physicists to steal a completely trivial concept and re-brand it as cutting edge thinkies

Put plainly: this comment sucks. Egocentric, know-it-all, insulting, judgmental, incurious, nearly information-free, and aggressively opposite to "yes, and..." Irritatingly common on social media, but if this were posted in a KDO thread, it would get instantly deleted.

Contrast that with Steve Bryant's comment here on the site on exactly the same topic:

Similar to Buridan's Ass! "Should two courses be judged equal, then the will cannot break the deadlock, all it can do is to suspend judgement until the circumstances change, and the right course of action is clear." The wiki is fascinating and has examples of predecessors, including Aristotle's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

The comment is almost 100% information, includes a link to learn more, piques the reader's curiosity, and doesn't judge anyone or anything. This is how it's done.

Phil

Good article.  I’m already in my curmudgeon era.  😍

I think we are a generation into the redaction/restriction-free responses you describe Jason.  I don’t think it’s going to change.  

In the absence of moderating replies to death, I think the only other thing to modify is access to the community and access to comment on individual posts.

Happy Accident: in my hopes of never willingly giving money to Fox, we’ve been watching the World Cup on Telemundo via Peacock and it’s been GLORIOUS!  

C
Clare Parkinson Edited

Moderating access to the community makes sense to me - that's how it would work IRL, where these people also exist. If someone is consistently a negative jerk every time they respond to me, I'm going to make efforts to avoid their company. 

We have to monitor our own communication too. That instinct to respond "you're wrong in this particular way" is strong; I'm trying to train myself to respond in the "yes, and" model.

Also 100% agree about Telemundo. I catch one word in 10, but it's still a better experience. 

D
David Dunbar

My "yes and" contribution to the varieties of national soccer/football broadcasts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjp1Zrvn8VQ. Sorry if this is a low effort post, but I'm only human and couldn't resist!

Reply in this thread

In order to comment or fave, you need to be a kottke.org member. Check out your membership options.

Note: If you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or extensions. Or try logging out and then back in. Still having trouble? Email me!