webb

I want to clarify something. Establishing boundaries is okay, and a microblog can be very personal. A microblog can be a safe space for someone, but also a brand account that has everyone screaming at it. Establishing boundaries on an account that's personal is more akin to establishing a boundary as a person. Some people get harassed. That's just a reality. If someone is triggered by constant corrections because of harassment, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to establish that boundary. But that's up to them to establish, not to assume everyone else would or should know and that people are evil if they don't.

Microblogs are different, they can be very personal.

The thing is that there are reply guys who are in it just to be a nuisance. My criticism is that they aren't trying to establish boundaries with innocent people, and that they resort to basically bullying people for trying to be nice, and have a conversation.

I don't fully agree with the notion that a microblog is a third place like, say, Lemmy or Reddit is. A profile can be incredibly personal, and there can be tools used to limit who sees it for that reason. A profile can either be a massive one with a massive audience, or one with a few of your friends following. Those both are very different. The third place would arguably the instance the user is posting on, and those have rules and expectations. Federated conversations are very different. It's more akin to a town full of third places. In the streets, you need to establish boundaries with people you're having a conversation with if you don't know them.

One of the traits of ASD is unintentionally offending people. That doesn’t mean people have to accept every rude thing an autistic person does without complaint, and they’re ablist if they don’t. It means you should be understanding and clearly explain boundaries. That’s exactly what the original post did.

No it didn't, it tried to explain an invisible boundary like it's a normal thing for everyone and everywhere when it isn't.

Yeah, it’s annoying that some rules are usually unwritten because everyone else already knows them. It would be more annoying if everything anyone ever wrote had “Please don’t respond with advice or criticism” at the end.

...how is that annoying? People write little messages in content warnings all the time, and like I mentioned in the OP you can stick it in your bio and write it once. Not everyone knows them anyways, because even in the Fediverse that kind of thing can differ a lot. I honestly feel like you didn't really bother to read my entire post, because your response doesn't seem to be really addressing the criticisms I made in the post and their reasoning.

This rule has been written down now, clearly and very politely. Maybe you or I didn’t know it before but we do now. If you refuse to listen and continue correcting strangers on social media that isn’t autism, it’s just being intentionally rude.

Again, the OP is giving advice for interaction on the network /generally/. They aren't just talking about themselves. Again, I feel like you didn't really read what I said, because a lot of what you're saying is a strawman.

Traditionally, a "reply guy" is someone who replies to a specific person or group of people over and over with excessive corrections/"just asking questions"/other tactics with the intent to harass/waste time/make people angry. It's a kind of troll that's typically on Twitter.

For me, I scroll so I can peak at the bottom of the video and wait for it to cut elsewhere.

A quick way to break eye contact is to scroll.

Arachnids also include scorpians and ticks, so spiders it makes sense humans evolved that way. Perhaps some proto-spider was a lot more dangerous.

Though, jumping spiders are pretty chill and what got me to be less afraid of spiders. They're tiny, they're adorable, they're really friendly, and for some reason they didn't trigger the same arachnophobic response in me. I have a theory that perhaps jumping spiders fed on ticks and other bugs that ancestors of ours might've had, and so we became less afraid of them. Spiders cooperating with other species isn't new, such as the dotted humming frog.

You missed the entire point of what I was saying.

I’m all for allowing your kid to access the groups that make them feel valued and included, but at this junction phones and social in school is more harmful than helpful.

In the article, they're talking about how social media affects students both in and out of school. Phones should be allowed in school as long as it isn't disruptive to other students. Banning phones will just make people hide them more, instead of more openly using them and allowing discussions about how it might be harming them. Using your phone in a way that might harm your education in class is usually a sign of disengagement, lack of interest, or apathy to education, whether or not you have a phone. If anything, those same students will just do more disruptive things (talking, moving around, etc.) Banning phones is merely banning a symptom of the problem. I've experienced this first hand. Classes with students who didn't give a shit? They just kept to themselves on their phone. Classes with those same students that had phone buckets? I had to leave because of my sensory issues, they were that loud.

I’m all for allowing your kid to access the groups that make them feel valued and included, but at this junction phones and social in school is more harmful than helpful.

I strongly disagree. The people who really need their phones should have them. They shouldn't be punished because of a crumbling education system failing other people. If a student is using their phone because they don't want the education they're being offered, that's ultimately their decision, you can't help students who don't want to help themselves. Listening to those students and funding programs where they might actually be engaged would do much more than that. Practising moderation and restraint is also an incredibly important life skill to learn at an age like that. You can't do that if not having your phone depends on external factors.

Most of the harm from social media happens outside of class anyways.

People in education have a tendency of blaming everybody but themselves. Slapping a band-aid on the system and staff that fails students is going to create more and more problems down the line, and won't even help in the short term.

As much as mainstream social media is bad, there are online communities that are strictly necessary for some groups. Banning social media would stop closeted queer youth from participating in communities that would support them. Asking your homophobic parents about queer sexuality, for example, is a one-way ticket to getting your ass out on the street. Asking a community of fellow queer people anonymously is more viable. As toxic as social media can be, it can also be a refuge for good people who need to escape the real world and the consequences of it.

It really is an all-or-nothing approach. Either we make systems that are effective enough to stop everyone, or make them ineffective enough that they can be bypassed.

We should be helping young people navigate, and have a healthy relationship with it. The technology reflects and caters to the negative parts of the society it exists in. The best thing we can do is make the world better in the first place. Body-negativity isn't here because social media decided it must exist, it's because an algorithm decided that appealing to the existing negative thoughts and beliefs of people gets engagement. The only other way to deal with this problem is to dismantle capitalism so that organisations that run these platforms aren't perpetually seeking profit at all costs.

The Fediverse is dominated by hackers, who by their nature are incompatible with existing systems such as capitalism.