In Defense of the Pillowfort Reblog System
Feb. 7th, 2021 04:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osteophage[Note: this post was originally made to Pillowfort on Dec 19, 2018. It could probably use some edits, but this version is current as of 8 months ago.]
aka how to make sure I don’t delete your comment right off the bat
The issue of the Pillowfort reblog system is one that has been discussed a lot already, and because of that, I ask that you do homework and read up on at least a little of the existing conversation before jumping in -- see below, where I’ve already gathered together some recommended reading for you.
If you come here and comment to disagree simply by repeating things that have already been said ad nauseum, without engaging any of my actual points, I am going to regard your comment as spam. In other words, it may get deleted.
If you start a comment thread here, let it be on the actual topic of this post. The topic of this post is not “What are the benefits of each system?” and the topic of this post is not “What are the drawbacks of each system?” The topic of this post is “What are the benefits of the existing pillowfort system?” and “Given that each system or any combination is going to have its benefits and drawbacks, how do we decide between them?”
Subtle difference! What this means though is that, due to the amount of posting that’s already been done on this issue, while thoughtful good-faith disagreement is invited, I'm only entertaining disagreement that is original. Unoriginal comments like “well here’s what I personally like about the tumblr-style system though” are at risk of being deleted for talking at me instead of with me, capiche?
Mirrored-Reblog or Mirrored-Share System: This will be my term to describe a sharing feature unique to a select few number of sites such as Pillowfort and Mastodon, where reblogging/sharing/boosting means sharing an exact replica of just the post itself, without edits or amendments.
Reblog-Addition System: This describes the Tumblr-style system of sharing feature which combines the sharing option with an option to amend or add to that post, directly, in the act of sharing. I will be using “additions” to refer to additions made in the act of reblogging, as distinct from “comments.”
As a potential compromise, I would be content with an alteration to the system that allows the OP (and only the OP) to append/highlight/grant “featured” status to one comment.
When I posted a link to the article about Web 2.0 & tumblr destroying fandom a little while ago, I added the tag “slippery earth” because, as I was reflecting on that article, it reminded me of an essay I read a few months back about Aztec moral philosophy. According to that essay [cn: possible ed triggers], this moral philosophy includes this idea that how people behave in life, whether they make good choices or bad ones, isn’t totally just determined by “who they are” at personal level. Professor Sebastian Purcell describes it as a more “socially-centered” ethics that does not value “withstanding temptation” (a kind of moral endurance contest) so much as it values preventing that temptation from arising in the first place, through the cultivation of the right routines and relationships that help support you in making the choices you want to make. Mistakes are understood as contextual; everyone can slip up when the earth is slippery. What we do about that, instead of berating ourselves or trying to become more personally disciplined, is try to live a more “rooted” life on this slippery earth. If you read the Web 2.0 essay – which I recommend you do – I think you can see how tumblr’s features make it an especially slippery place, making it easy for the site to become a hotbed of reactionary blogging practices.
I hypothesize that one of the many features to blame for that is the reblog-addition system.
First, I'll address the first one: reblogging to disagree. When people have a sharing feature that allows users to make direct additions, one of the types of additions they use it for is disagreement. In fact this is something I’ve even seen brought up by the addition-system proponents themselves. For example, here is a comment by one such proponent:
This is a serious drawback because if it becomes a widespread practice on the site, then it runs the risk of creating a negative impact in aggregate, for several reasons: 1) suspenseful scrolling and 2) increased visibility for bad posts, leading to 3) a stressed-out, short-tempered userbase.
For instance, almost everybody who’s encountered Tumblr arguments before has experienced suspenseful scrolling -- that emotional rollercoaster when you start reading a long reblog-addition argument, scrolling in growing suspense as you try to figure out which side is being endorsed. Maybe you’re comfortable in accepting that discomfort as a tradeoff. I could understand that. But there's something more important to take into account here, too.
Reblogging to disagree still boosts a post’s visibility. It still spreads that post farther than it would have otherwise. It still exposes it to more with more eyes. Even with your witty burn at the end, you’re still expanding its reach. It's still extending "a platform," as they say. By comparison, commenting to disagree makes it far easier to argue with a bad post without boosting its circulation.
This has two consequences right off the bat. One, not all bad posts are created equal. They all come in varying degrees of provocation to respond. From what I’ve witnessed, the motivation to add with disagreement or reblog added-disagreement is greatest not when a post is “slightly off” (which might encourage engaging in nuanced ways), but rather when the badness of original post is perceived as outlandishly severe, and this means that the worst stuff attracts the most circulation. Secondly, even if everyone who encounters the added-disagreement version takes the side of the adder/critic (which they might not!), that boosted visibility can still have negative consequences, because in aggregate, a site culture of reblogging to disagree means a site culture of continuous re-exposure to the things you hate.
Continuous re-exposure to the things you hate will stress you out. Stressed out people become less charitable toward others, more inclined to make snap judgements, and much quicker to lash out in anger.
Sound familiar?
We’re not done yet. From here, this system also leads to more instigation (without resolution) of conflict and a culture of hostility. When sharing a post in disagreement becomes the accepted way of engaging in any and all fights, choosing to add or keep adding to a post involves negotiating a tension between 1) the desire to speak your mind and 2) the desire to avoid annoying your followers with repetition of the same post. The risk of the latter increases with every new addition tacked on. From what I’ve witnessed, a post can only get so long or get reblog-added on so many times before it becomes excessively long and unwieldy, making it annoying for even the arguers to deal with. Eventually, before a resolution can be reached, somebody gives up and goes to make their own fresh post.
This means that reblog-addition "discussions" between two people typically have a very quick expiration date, simply due to the demands of the mechanical and social context. Ergo it’s easy to start a fight, but it's hard to get very far into that fight on any given single post. This makes it difficult to reach any resolution before you would be considered out of line for persistent “spamming” your followers. And that's to speak nothing of how tumblr’s reblog-addition formatting actually makes it annoying to format a thorough response point-by-point. I’m not even taking the time here to get into how comment section blockquotes make it easier to take a more nuanced approach instead of replying to entire arguments with either totalistic rejection/support -- or how important I believe repeated longterm dialogue is for effective persuasion to take effect. The point is that reblog-addition chains come with a time limit, and that time limit is short. People already have limited patience (which is fair!), but in this system, people give up on individual posts even faster, too quickly for most people to even come close to changing their minds.
This "public" (share-broadcasted) form of engaging in fights also means that you also have to worry more about saving face when you argue. It’s not just about impression management with your opponent, but also, simultaneously, impression management with your followers. When you’re addressing two very different audiences at once, sometimes that forces you to choose which of the two audiences to prioritize. You can guess which one people usually pick. Because many people find it embarrassing or even socially treacherous to admit “you’ve got a point there,” people will avoid doing anything like that, because they don’t want to risk their standing in the eyes of their followers. On Tumblr, reblogging to admit defeat is practically unheard of. That’s not just because people are stubborn by nature. It’s because conceding a point doesn’t feel cool and isn’t considered worth broadcasting to all your followers.
This is another part of why the fights on Tumblr will seem to go on forever — both 1) because people abandon an individual chain before they can reach a shared understanding, and 2) because even when people do change their minds, it’s not as openly announced or widely shared.
When reblogging-to-disagree becomes intertwined with trying to look cool or be entertaining to followers, a culture of reblogging-to-disagree can crystalize into the form of snippy, hostile reblogging practices. Hostile reblogging practices are a subset of reblogging-to-disagree which involve reblogging solely to showcase your vicious shutdowns. That is, reacting not to engage, but to point and laugh. For an example of the distinction, consider how on Tumblr, some users developed a practice of spamming or dogpiling one particular user with the same joke whenever he posted or added onto a post. Note I’m someone who likes sharing a good comeback with friends as much as anyone. And yet. What I’m saying here is that 1) when showcasing & circulating a spectacular insult becomes vastly more socially valued than putting in the longterm work of actually changing an opponent’s mind, and 2) when people’s fear of “giving in” or admitting to changing their mind makes them avoid “publicizing” as much to their followers, I’ve seen how this easily develops a culture where people gain social cred and popularity out of being obstinate and mean.
I don’t want this. As someone who struggles with the temptation to be obstinate and mean, I don’t want this. As someone already prone to being sucked into this sort of culture, I don’t want this. I don’t want this.
“It’d be optional” means nothing when we already know what people do with the option.
As one last, final point, I want you to consider the drastic difference this would make for our feeds. The reblog-addition system on tumblr produces as stressful environment because it makes fights that much harder to avoid or step out of, when every single little iteration of “take THAT” gets broadcast in full right onto your dash. The solution to this was supposed to be people tagging for fights, but there’s always some hotshot who thinks their exceptional insights are just too important for that. Understand that although I’m coming to this issue as someone who believes in fighting, I also sympathize with people who get just plain sick of it and want to bow out, and I hate when a fight I don’t want to take part in keeps getting dumped onto my feed, untagged. I have to beg people to tag for it, and even then, you've got people who feel like they're too good for that and will spit at you for asking.
And you know what unsettles me? Knowing how easy it would be for me to become that person, too.
There’s a certain pleasure in acting self-righteous. I’m speaking to you as someone who has made these mistakes too many times before.
Opening up the incentives for reblogging-to-disagree would make it tempting to broadcast every scathing rebuttal straight to the feed instead of recommending it with a quote/paraphrasing and a link, and regardless of how you feel about that, I myself don’t want a boatload of that poured all over my feed. I don't want us to face the temptation to blog like that. I don't want myself to face the temptation.
To sum up, the reblog-additions system encourages & leads to:
A post on why I think the separation of comments and reblogs is a good thing, with communal, social benefits that exceed the importance of its drawbacks, and why I think Pillowfort's current reblog system should stay that way. This post is separated into six parts: some rules of engagement, lit review, definitions of terms, my stance, some context, and my reasons.
Some rules of engagementaka how to make sure I don’t delete your comment right off the bat
The issue of the Pillowfort reblog system is one that has been discussed a lot already, and because of that, I ask that you do homework and read up on at least a little of the existing conversation before jumping in -- see below, where I’ve already gathered together some recommended reading for you.
If you come here and comment to disagree simply by repeating things that have already been said ad nauseum, without engaging any of my actual points, I am going to regard your comment as spam. In other words, it may get deleted.
If you start a comment thread here, let it be on the actual topic of this post. The topic of this post is not “What are the benefits of each system?” and the topic of this post is not “What are the drawbacks of each system?” The topic of this post is “What are the benefits of the existing pillowfort system?” and “Given that each system or any combination is going to have its benefits and drawbacks, how do we decide between them?”
Subtle difference! What this means though is that, due to the amount of posting that’s already been done on this issue, while thoughtful good-faith disagreement is invited, I'm only entertaining disagreement that is original. Unoriginal comments like “well here’s what I personally like about the tumblr-style system though” are at risk of being deleted for talking at me instead of with me, capiche?
Some lit review
aka the part where I link to some of the things people have already been saying
- July 7th, 2018 -- Flow of Communication; or, The Purpose of Reblogging, a post about differences between Tumblr and Pillowfort reblog systems and how this affects the flow of communication.
- Aug 6th -- deleting reblogs, a very controversial post that generated a lot of negative comments in a short time frame. This one's actually somewhat off-topic & kind of confusing, because as you can see, OP seems to be using "reblogs" to mean both "reblogs" and "comments," but I'm including the link here because that whole mixup (and the resulting firestorm of disagreement) relates to the same issue.
- Sept 11th -- "We still have a dashboard system like Tumblr, but no one needs to reblog things to engage with them." Another post with a very large amount of comments. OP has expressed a disinterest in continuing the conversation there, but I’m still including it for reference.
- Sept-Dec -- a comment thread on A New Dialect, on why "being able to have real conversations in the comments section on posts without necessarily having to show that post to my followers at all is a huge thing I love."
- Dec 13th -- Pillowfort Feature Requests, one user's personal wishlist that includes "Additions to Posts" as an item.
- Dec 13th -- pfio's reblog & comment structure, a defense in favor of the current system.
- Dec 13th -- my post disclosing a tired resignation about the need to write this post you're reading now (see comments).
- Dec 16th -- "Hey Pillowfort @staff," a post suggesting a compromise on the reblog feature issue.
- Dec 17th -- Missing the Marginalised Megaphone, a post in favor of changing the reblog system.
- Dec 17th -- Something I've Noticed, a post commenting on the conversation.
- Dec 18th -- So you want to have a conversation on a reblog?, a post suggesting an alternative.
- Dec 21st -- Linked Posts, a post suggesting another alternative.
- Apr 5th, 2019 -- Responded to Staff's survey, a post requesting approvable additions.
- Aug 21st -- Adding PillowfortPosts, Comment posts, and Community Posts to link embedd, a post about changing the embed feature/link post type to mimic a reblog-additions system.
- Dec 4th -- @staff: would it be possible to add a tumblr-like reblog system?
Some definitions
aka how I’m gonna separate all these things out so it doesn’t get confusing
Mirrored-Reblog or Mirrored-Share System: This will be my term to describe a sharing feature unique to a select few number of sites such as Pillowfort and Mastodon, where reblogging/sharing/boosting means sharing an exact replica of just the post itself, without edits or amendments.
Reblog-Addition System: This describes the Tumblr-style system of sharing feature which combines the sharing option with an option to amend or add to that post, directly, in the act of sharing. I will be using “additions” to refer to additions made in the act of reblogging, as distinct from “comments.”
A stance
aka my central thesis here
As a potential compromise, I would be content with an alteration to the system that allows the OP (and only the OP) to append/highlight/grant “featured” status to one comment.
Some context
aka some background framing to how I'm thinking about all this
When I posted a link to the article about Web 2.0 & tumblr destroying fandom a little while ago, I added the tag “slippery earth” because, as I was reflecting on that article, it reminded me of an essay I read a few months back about Aztec moral philosophy. According to that essay [cn: possible ed triggers], this moral philosophy includes this idea that how people behave in life, whether they make good choices or bad ones, isn’t totally just determined by “who they are” at personal level. Professor Sebastian Purcell describes it as a more “socially-centered” ethics that does not value “withstanding temptation” (a kind of moral endurance contest) so much as it values preventing that temptation from arising in the first place, through the cultivation of the right routines and relationships that help support you in making the choices you want to make. Mistakes are understood as contextual; everyone can slip up when the earth is slippery. What we do about that, instead of berating ourselves or trying to become more personally disciplined, is try to live a more “rooted” life on this slippery earth. If you read the Web 2.0 essay – which I recommend you do – I think you can see how tumblr’s features make it an especially slippery place, making it easy for the site to become a hotbed of reactionary blogging practices.
I hypothesize that one of the many features to blame for that is the reblog-addition system.
Some reasons
aka the stuff you gotta refute if you want to argue with me on this
First, I'll address the first one: reblogging to disagree. When people have a sharing feature that allows users to make direct additions, one of the types of additions they use it for is disagreement. In fact this is something I’ve even seen brought up by the addition-system proponents themselves. For example, here is a comment by one such proponent:
Many times the reason I reblogged an addition instead of the original post was because the original post was WRONG or OFFENSIVE and the addition corrected that.Based on 1) this reasoning being given by its proponents and 2) the blogging practices that many of us have witnessed on Tumblr, in addition to 3) the fact that many Pillowfort users have moved here from Tumblr, I believe it is fair to expect that implementing reblog-additions will cause this (reblogging to disagree) to happen a lot more.
This is a serious drawback because if it becomes a widespread practice on the site, then it runs the risk of creating a negative impact in aggregate, for several reasons: 1) suspenseful scrolling and 2) increased visibility for bad posts, leading to 3) a stressed-out, short-tempered userbase.
For instance, almost everybody who’s encountered Tumblr arguments before has experienced suspenseful scrolling -- that emotional rollercoaster when you start reading a long reblog-addition argument, scrolling in growing suspense as you try to figure out which side is being endorsed. Maybe you’re comfortable in accepting that discomfort as a tradeoff. I could understand that. But there's something more important to take into account here, too.
Reblogging to disagree still boosts a post’s visibility. It still spreads that post farther than it would have otherwise. It still exposes it to more with more eyes. Even with your witty burn at the end, you’re still expanding its reach. It's still extending "a platform," as they say. By comparison, commenting to disagree makes it far easier to argue with a bad post without boosting its circulation.
This has two consequences right off the bat. One, not all bad posts are created equal. They all come in varying degrees of provocation to respond. From what I’ve witnessed, the motivation to add with disagreement or reblog added-disagreement is greatest not when a post is “slightly off” (which might encourage engaging in nuanced ways), but rather when the badness of original post is perceived as outlandishly severe, and this means that the worst stuff attracts the most circulation. Secondly, even if everyone who encounters the added-disagreement version takes the side of the adder/critic (which they might not!), that boosted visibility can still have negative consequences, because in aggregate, a site culture of reblogging to disagree means a site culture of continuous re-exposure to the things you hate.
Continuous re-exposure to the things you hate will stress you out. Stressed out people become less charitable toward others, more inclined to make snap judgements, and much quicker to lash out in anger.
Sound familiar?
We’re not done yet. From here, this system also leads to more instigation (without resolution) of conflict and a culture of hostility. When sharing a post in disagreement becomes the accepted way of engaging in any and all fights, choosing to add or keep adding to a post involves negotiating a tension between 1) the desire to speak your mind and 2) the desire to avoid annoying your followers with repetition of the same post. The risk of the latter increases with every new addition tacked on. From what I’ve witnessed, a post can only get so long or get reblog-added on so many times before it becomes excessively long and unwieldy, making it annoying for even the arguers to deal with. Eventually, before a resolution can be reached, somebody gives up and goes to make their own fresh post.
This means that reblog-addition "discussions" between two people typically have a very quick expiration date, simply due to the demands of the mechanical and social context. Ergo it’s easy to start a fight, but it's hard to get very far into that fight on any given single post. This makes it difficult to reach any resolution before you would be considered out of line for persistent “spamming” your followers. And that's to speak nothing of how tumblr’s reblog-addition formatting actually makes it annoying to format a thorough response point-by-point. I’m not even taking the time here to get into how comment section blockquotes make it easier to take a more nuanced approach instead of replying to entire arguments with either totalistic rejection/support -- or how important I believe repeated longterm dialogue is for effective persuasion to take effect. The point is that reblog-addition chains come with a time limit, and that time limit is short. People already have limited patience (which is fair!), but in this system, people give up on individual posts even faster, too quickly for most people to even come close to changing their minds.
This "public" (share-broadcasted) form of engaging in fights also means that you also have to worry more about saving face when you argue. It’s not just about impression management with your opponent, but also, simultaneously, impression management with your followers. When you’re addressing two very different audiences at once, sometimes that forces you to choose which of the two audiences to prioritize. You can guess which one people usually pick. Because many people find it embarrassing or even socially treacherous to admit “you’ve got a point there,” people will avoid doing anything like that, because they don’t want to risk their standing in the eyes of their followers. On Tumblr, reblogging to admit defeat is practically unheard of. That’s not just because people are stubborn by nature. It’s because conceding a point doesn’t feel cool and isn’t considered worth broadcasting to all your followers.
This is another part of why the fights on Tumblr will seem to go on forever — both 1) because people abandon an individual chain before they can reach a shared understanding, and 2) because even when people do change their minds, it’s not as openly announced or widely shared.
When reblogging-to-disagree becomes intertwined with trying to look cool or be entertaining to followers, a culture of reblogging-to-disagree can crystalize into the form of snippy, hostile reblogging practices. Hostile reblogging practices are a subset of reblogging-to-disagree which involve reblogging solely to showcase your vicious shutdowns. That is, reacting not to engage, but to point and laugh. For an example of the distinction, consider how on Tumblr, some users developed a practice of spamming or dogpiling one particular user with the same joke whenever he posted or added onto a post. Note I’m someone who likes sharing a good comeback with friends as much as anyone. And yet. What I’m saying here is that 1) when showcasing & circulating a spectacular insult becomes vastly more socially valued than putting in the longterm work of actually changing an opponent’s mind, and 2) when people’s fear of “giving in” or admitting to changing their mind makes them avoid “publicizing” as much to their followers, I’ve seen how this easily develops a culture where people gain social cred and popularity out of being obstinate and mean.
I don’t want this. As someone who struggles with the temptation to be obstinate and mean, I don’t want this. As someone already prone to being sucked into this sort of culture, I don’t want this. I don’t want this.
“It’d be optional” means nothing when we already know what people do with the option.
As one last, final point, I want you to consider the drastic difference this would make for our feeds. The reblog-addition system on tumblr produces as stressful environment because it makes fights that much harder to avoid or step out of, when every single little iteration of “take THAT” gets broadcast in full right onto your dash. The solution to this was supposed to be people tagging for fights, but there’s always some hotshot who thinks their exceptional insights are just too important for that. Understand that although I’m coming to this issue as someone who believes in fighting, I also sympathize with people who get just plain sick of it and want to bow out, and I hate when a fight I don’t want to take part in keeps getting dumped onto my feed, untagged. I have to beg people to tag for it, and even then, you've got people who feel like they're too good for that and will spit at you for asking.
And you know what unsettles me? Knowing how easy it would be for me to become that person, too.
There’s a certain pleasure in acting self-righteous. I’m speaking to you as someone who has made these mistakes too many times before.
Opening up the incentives for reblogging-to-disagree would make it tempting to broadcast every scathing rebuttal straight to the feed instead of recommending it with a quote/paraphrasing and a link, and regardless of how you feel about that, I myself don’t want a boatload of that poured all over my feed. I don't want us to face the temptation to blog like that. I don't want myself to face the temptation.
To sum up, the reblog-additions system encourages & leads to:
- Reblogging to disagree
- Suspenseful scrolling
- More circulation of the bad stuff
- More circulation of the worst stuff
- Stressing you & your followers out
- More starting fights, but less resolving them
- Circulating a post just for the good comeback, not because minds were changed
- Less visibility for changed minds and apologies, by comparison
- Hostile reblogging practices
- Self-righteous attitudes about when and how something deserves to be shared
