Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴
@links
I’m probably in the minority here buuuut… Toxic X Engagement tactic: post a defensibly well-meaning but provocative question. Then when people answer in good faith, reply with extremely specific questions which attack the responder’s lack of nuance (which the medium does not allow). Why it’s toxic: it shifts the burden of proof from the person asking leading questions to the responders. It’s also exhausting and cuts down any meaningful conversation from good-faith respondents (the people who continue to engage are usually emotionally charged). This tactic works very well on X, and I see it being used here a bunch too. I don’t like it, though.
5 replies
2 recasts
25 reactions
jtgi
@jtgi
yeah, short form ephemeral content and engagement algos encourage it.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
links 🏴
@links
The medium is the message, I guess? All of these social networks are tuned for entertainment in short bursts, so it’s natural stuff that quickly gets an emotional response would be rewarded…but… I dunno, I guess I was hoping FC could be different.
1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
jtgi
@jtgi
> I was hoping FC could be different. As long as Warpcast remains the dominant client I don't see it deviating too far from Twitter in terms of types of content and the follow on discourse.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
