People are very upset about replies and unsolicited advice..
It makes me wonder about other ways to build consent into social media ux, like the little warning that appears when you're about to reply to someone not in your network, if you could configure that for your own account to say "if I'm not explicitly asking a question please don't give me advice" or whatever idk
@sue There is a lot of bad UX design related to security/privacy/consent (they don’t overlap perfectly but they do overlap a lot) that fatigues or confuses users with things like constant pop-ups (instead of set-and-forget settings) or things that are irrelevant - or may seem irrelevant because they aren’t explained in clear language.
@sue Often this is deliberate because it’s basically malicious compliance with some regulation or other that technically gives users a way to consent or not consent but in reality overwhelms them to the point where they are just clicking through pop-ups to make them go away/not visiting the settings/just not dealing with whatever because the cognitive load is so high.
@sue Sometimes it’s not intentional, the people or institutions putting this horrible user experience on the user have never navigated the application or system from the user’s perspective and don’t realize what a pain in the ass it is, or how much of a pain in the ass it is in the context of the user’s day/workflow.
@sue This is even before the point where you genuinely care about a user’s privacy and consent and want to help them exercise agency. Even then it’s still very hard.
Because how do you make sure the user is informed and able to exercise consent consistently without being annoying and overwhelming them with pop-ups and advisories and such like you were describing?
@sue Maybe the answer is to give users universal settings at first install/startup that they can configure so that they change their privacy or publicity levels on a case-by-case basis and only get a notification if something unusual is going on.
But that could be annoying too.
You might have to know what the user’s expectations are, which may be different from person to person.
@MisuseCase OK that's more than enough thank you. Something being annoying is not equivalent to the stress caused by people being engaged with in ways they find intrusive.
Being a woman I get a lot of patronising replies and it can bother me, microaggresions can wear you the fuck down, but I can see that there are cases where:
The person doesn't realise they are overstepping my boundaries - it's a negotiation that should begin with respect for consent, because a reply happens - first and foremost - in the poster's space
The replier is responding to a biased take from someone more privileged than them
For the people saying you should be able to force advice on people against their will, I'd have a think about whether or not you believe in consent.. And how on earth do you think advice is going to be taken in such a circumstance..
There is a difference between sharing your own experiences or whatever and telling someone what you think they should do, that is inherently not a respectful starting position unless the person has explicitly consented to it
If you really want to influence someone in a direction you think will benefit them you're more likely to achieve that by establishing a mutually respectful relationship
Re last boost, that is someone who is trying to communicate openly, not even asking folk not to reply, if anything taking the bulk of the responsibility for what is in reality a two way street, and is receiving a barrage of passive aggressive replies, clearly there is a problem with reply culture on here!
There is some cognitive dissonance between the increased focus on content warnings and the lack of regard for your behaviour in someone's replies
Like, you can curate your timeline, mute, block, etc, but you have less control over what happens in your own replies unless you basically lock them down.. The balance of perceived responsibility is.. interesting lol
Add comment