this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
19 points (88.0% liked)

Casual Conversation

1910 readers
198 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 1/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What do you think about this approach to social networks? I think she is right in this, for me the social networks don't make much sense any more as it doesn't lead to any real interaction, which was the purpose of having online connections in first place.

https://caoilainn.substack.com/p/just-delete-them

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Apparently, i’m not the only one who feels that way. I tried to use Mastodon, but couldn’t find anyone worth following. People always post random stuff I don’t care about.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't follow people. Follow hashtags. It's a much better experience.

[–] Tehdastehdas 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Hashtags don't work as well as disambiguated topics used to work on Quora before enshittification. Many real topics have many hashtags associated to them: acronyms, whole names, misspellings. Meanwhile, many hashtags have many real topics associated to them, especially acronyms with many possible collisions: https://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/AGI

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

They work better than following people does, though.