One thing I have not seemed to escape by leaving Big Tech social media is that the content of my feed is still wrapped so often in two dominant genres of communication - outrage and sarcasm.

If there's a communication pattern that there might be more of in the fediverse compared to my other social network experiences, it is probably 'Facts and numbers' and 'General information' (stuff you could in principle look up in some reference material, if you knew the right place to look). When people start a comment with "actually", you there is some kind of fact/number or general information coming up.

Here and there I see some factual questions too, which still falls into the broader trend for fact-focused communication. But sincere questions always seem rarer in online contexts. Most of use just tend to unload what we already know and ask less curious questions. This thread is perhaps one such example. What do you think?

The thing with fact-focused communication is that it is a bit of a hit or miss. People that feel very comfortable and believe strongly in the value of that kind of communication pattern often think that it is an entirely neutral genre of interaction. They don't understand why other people sometimes react negatively to their fact-sharing or general information - that might or might not be relevant.

If you're one of those that often find yourself saying things like "But I'm just saying the facts" or "I just wanted to point out ... that's all" then you might be in this group.

I've certainly found myself in that position before. One thing I've learned by encountering a theory and practice called SAVI (System for Analyzing Verbal Interactions) is that facts and general information is what can be called contingent communication. That means: whether it will have the effect of increasing or decreasing the flow of information is entirely contingent on the prior communication climate.

Consider the difference between these two scenarios. (1) You've just had a deep and trust-building experience for hours with your friend - say, bonding over life around a camp fire just the two of you. You just realize a fact and share it with your friend. (2) You drop into a heated conversation between several people that you've never met before. You just realize a fact that is relevant to what they're talking about and share it with them.

Which of the two are likely to be open to your fact?

Contingent communication is contingent on the prior communication climate. That's why it is a bit of a hit or miss. When it misses, it can come across as confrontational, even taunting, attacking or self-righteous. And that is likely to produce the exact same energy in response. One of the challenges with online social networks is we can't hear each others voice tone or see each others faces. When we speak in everyday life, most of the communication happens in voice and face - not the words.

Sometimes, like today, I wonder what kinds of communication patterns are appropriate to an environment that is entirely based on text. The rules change - and perhaps our precautions and etiquettes should too. On that note, this is one reason why I particularly dislike sarcasm in text-based communication environments. Sarcasm and irony is already by its very contradictory nature challenging to get (you're saying one thing, but also the opposite thing). Usually voice tone and face gives it away.

@malte it's very hard to get political debate without outrage and sarcasm. and of course without all those one-issue commentators who point to the same culprit no matter what the issue, so that their comments basically just become noise

@Stoori Good one, that's definitely a "genre" I see too - probably fall into as well on occasion. Redundancy is one of the three sources on noise after all. And I agree with you that is hard to have political debate without outrage and sarcasm. At the bottom of both genres I see powerlessness and hopelessness. That experience is as common as can be. It's also at the heart of what I am passionate about shifting.

@malte yeah, it's certainly based on powerlessness and hopelessness. but i guess it's also a learned habit about what debate on social media should be like — a reflex to have opinions instead of considering the issue from multiple angles.

academic discourse is pretty close to what i'd like to read more, but perhaps not that detached from everyday realities that academic discourse often tends to be. but the attitude that you can state different points of view without endorsing them.

On social media, it sometimes becomes extremely difficult to decipher whether or not something is meant ironically or not - especially if you don't know the person and context from where it is said. And if you're not habitually speaking (and analyzing) from an ironical stance.

On social media, it sometimes becomes extremely difficult to decipher whether or not something is meant ironically or not - especially if you don't know the person and context from where it is said. And if you're not habitually speaking (and analyzing) from an ironical stance.

@malte@radikal.social Like this?