DISQUS

Scobleizer · 1 year ago

This is why I say it's more important who you choose to follow than who follows you. If you don't like seeing politics in FriendFeed, just unsubscribe. I have two accounts. One with 0 friends. One with 3,500. The one with 0 friends never has any politics on it. The one with 3,500? Tons of politics.

FriendFeed is unique in that it is totally decentralized. No one has the same experience on it. So, if you aren't having a good experience there it's YOUR OWN FAULT.

robdiana · 1 year ago

Robert,

Unsubscribing is difficult because people have views on various topics. I disagree with Mark Hopkins political views, but I would not unsubscribe from him because I want to read everything else that he writes. You are spot on with your comment on the friendfeed experience. If you are OK with the lifestreaming idea, and you are not enjoying friendfeed you are doing something wrong.

Scobleizer · 1 year ago

robdiana,

Here's the ways you can control your experience:

1. Unsubscribe. I have two FriendFeed accounts. One has 0 friends, the other has 3,500. The one with 0 friends has no politics, funny enough. So, by subscribing to people you are welcoming them into your home to discuss things with you. Now, you and I love hearing from people who don't agree with us but sounds like Mark should have only subscribed to people who agree with him so that he didn't get mad.
2. Block. This removes them from your view and you from theirs. I've done that for a few people who just are assholes and it's dramatically improved my experience on FriendFeed.
3. Only comment on your own items. If you do this chances are you won't get into fights because most people who'll comment on your own items will agree with you but if they get out of hand you can delete their comments (but that is only possible on items you start).
4. Turn off Friend-of-a-friend feature. This will keep your friends from dragging other people into your view. That makes it a lot more likely that most of the people in your view will agree with you.
5. Only use FriendFeed as an aggregator. If you don't participate in FriendFeed you won't get dragged into conversations that infuriate you.
6. Use lists. You could put people into two separate lists "people I like" and "people I hate." That way you make the choice to look at people you hate and you can avoid those on days when you are mentally weak.

The fact that Mark didn't do any of these to try to fix his experience tells me a lot about what kind of user he is and he did himself real harm here by just leaving. But I'll leave that to him to figure out.

Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins · 1 year ago

Robert - if you read any of my previous blog posts on the topic (and there are quite a few), I've used a number of these methods to try to fix the problem. You simply can't be a participant in FriendFeed and avoid this stuff for more than a few days at a time.

Scobleizer · 1 year ago

Mark: I still don't get what difference there is between your blog's comments and FriendFeed. I get attacked in my blog's comments all the time. Far more often, in fact, than on FriendFeed. But, whatever. I'll just come over to your blog now and tell you how wacky you are! :-)

Oh, and you seem like someone who can dish it out (you attacked me in a blog post and on FriendFeed) but you can't take your own medicine. That reflects a lot more on you than it does on FriendFeed.

Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins · 1 year ago

I can both dish it out and take it.
When things get personal and irrational is when I lose it. When I see
otherwise intelligent people ignoring the issues to make attacks on a
personal level, that's when I get angry, irritated, or feel the need to call
folks out.

For a time on FriendFeed (a week or so), I tried responding in kind
(irrational accusations in response to stupefying statements), but it didn't
really seem to have much of an effect.

In general, I have a much more broad and diverse audience both at my blog
and on Mashable than on FriendFeed. It's rarely "Rizzn vs. The World." On
FriendFeed, if there were folks who agreed with what I said, they were
generally not willing to speak up and face the insults and accusations.

In the end, I guess I just feel that the audience of FriendFeed is not one
where I feel comfortable enough to be myself.

Mark Trapp · 1 year ago

I don't think it's that simple, Robert. I wrote a bit on FriendFeed about this, but how do you deal with people who have no conversational filter, and *have* to put their two cents in every time a topic they don't agree with gets shared? From my own experience, people I don't subscribe to feel the need to go off on how the Catholic Church done them wrong every time I share a story about the Church. I think this is closer to what Mark was referring: he shared a story and people jumped on it. It gets tiring and FriendFeed doesn't have much you can do, wholesale, to get around it.

robdiana · 1 year ago

Mark, if someone jumps on a lot of things that you share, then maybe a block is appropriate. Even if I have shared a story and commented on it, that does not mean I will reply to everyone. Some people may say something that is insulting, but I tend not to respond to those things. I am not on sites like FriendFeed to have arguments. I am there to learn things and have good discussions.

Mark Trapp · 1 year ago

Rob, that probably is the best bet: I tend to just delete the topic (although it starts to get a bit like whack-a-mole on certain topics). I think it does go against the prevailing unwritten rules of FriendFeed, however: you're not supposed to squelch discussion because everything is supposed to be open and transparent. But if it's a discussion you don't want to have with people who are coming to you, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I think Mark took the reasonable way out of the problem, although I think he could've done it a few months ago like he had thought to do and it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

robdiana · 1 year ago

I tend to hide aggressively. At times, I have had only 3 items viewable on some of my lists, but that is OK to me because it only happens occasionally. As you say, the point of FriendFeed is sharing and discussion, so sometimes you get roped into a conversation you would rather avoid. Just remember, nothing is perfect. Rizzn did what he felt was right, that is OK with me.

Scobleizer · 1 year ago

robdiana: bug in your thinking. There are MULTIPLE "points" to FriendFeed. For one it's an aggregator. No participation required. For two it's a search engine. No participation required. For three they gave you tools to manage your community and make the experience there a good one for you. I say that if you want to build a community where you only hear from people who agree with you that you should be able to do that. It's not for me, and I'll make fun of you, but then I'm making fun of Mark here because he loves playing with matches and then runs when the room starts getting warm.

robdiana · 1 year ago

Robert, I was not saying the only point of FriendFeed was sharing and discussion, but obviously I could have been clearer about that. I have stated several times on my blog and on FriendFeed that it is a tool that you use in whatever way suits you. Personally, I love a lot of the discussions that happen on FriendFeed, but there are always some that basically degrade into name calling. But this is the internet, and that kind of thing happens.

Scobleizer · 1 year ago

You can guide people to change their behavior by participating with them. But, you've gotta understand that religion will get people up in arms. Maybe if you don't like getting in fights with people you should keep religious and political thoughts to yourself. Like I said about Mark, if you like playing with matches don't be surprised when the room starts getting hot.

Mark Trapp · 1 year ago

Robert, to limit a large part of one's interests just to be on FriendFeed for the sake of being on FriendFeed makes me wonder what the value of being on FriendFeed is. From following Mark for a few months, the political stuff is a large part of who Mark is. To tell him he can't talk about it because other people can't have an intellectual discussion about the topic seems to go against the value of social media.

Scobleizer · 1 year ago

Mark: what keeps me from going over to his blog and calling him names there? Oh, yeah, he can delete my comments. So, what is different from FriendFeed? If he doesn't want to hear from people who call him a jerk then maybe he should use the features of FriendFeed to block those people out of his life, just like he can on his blog.

Mark Trapp · 1 year ago

That's true, Robert, It'd be interesting to see if moderation could come in vogue over the prevailing idea that everything should be transparent and preserved. I remember a few months ago you and I were having a conversation about someone on Twitter who hated how conversations about his stuff were happening on FriendFeed, and everyone went nuts when he deleted that thread. The way it seems now is that you either a) leave things you really disagree with alone, giving what feels like tacit approval to the comment, b) moderate the discussion and have to deal with people shouting censorship, or c) attempt to discuss and disprove the comment, which leads to the discussions that suck. None of the options seem appealing to be on FriendFeed for the sake of being on FriendFeed.

Michael Markman (Mickeleh) · 1 year ago

Our brains have lot's o' filters. I'm no cognitive scientist, but I'm pretty sure we can all spot the stuff that we think is stinky real quick. Wallowing in the stink is at our option and peril. I'm thinking about the old vaudeville gag: "Doctor, it hurts when I go like this." "So, don't go like that."

Skim and skip.

robdiana · 1 year ago

Funny you say that, about being able to skip some things. It seems like some people are depending on the application to be able to provide the filters. The first filter should absolutely be yourself. You do not have to read everything. As you said, "skim and skip".

ChangeForge | Ken Stewart · 1 year ago

Rob, very well said, "These types of topics are very volatile because disagreement becomes an attack on "everything we believe"."

I tend to agree with your assertion that you are as responsible in a conversation as anyone else - and where your emotions are concerned - even more so.