People Don’t Know How to Actually Have Conversations on Social Media
I think the major breakdown with microblogging is that people don’t actually want to have conversations. I honestly don’t know what the fuck people want, but they don’t want to have dialogues with people—that’s for certain. Microblogging is a format that was specifically designed around how dialogue works. You say something, a person responds, and then you respond to that. It is not a monologue. You tacitly, implicitly, or even explicitly invite others into the conversation.
Specifically, microblogging is intended to simulate a call-and-response interaction. My husband was a theater kid, and we met when he was doing Rocky Horror Picture Show stuff. Call-and-response is really big with that. My husband is now a stocky, gruff, Southern blue-collar guy, but when we first met, he was a theatre kid, lol.
With microblogging formats and protocols, the “call” is the post itself. It might be a statement, a question, or a quick observation. Someone might write, “I think cats are better than dogs,” ask, “What’s the best way to learn Python?” or just admit, “Just spilled coffee on my keyboard.” The visibility of the post makes it possible for others to react or respond.
The “response” is any reply to that post. It could be agreement (“Totally, cats rule!”) or disagreement (“Dogs are way better”). It could also add context (“You might like this cat trick video”) or include a personal aside (“I had the same accident last week!”). The important part is that the reply depends on the original post. Without the post, there’s nothing to respond to. This dependency is what makes the exchange conversational rather than standalone.
This is structurally intended to create a back-and-forth thread. One person posts, someone replies, and the original poster responds. Others may then jump in. A typical exchange might start with “I love cats more than dogs,” followed by “Really? Dogs are more loyal,” and then, “I get that, but cats are independent and funny.” Someone else might add, “Cats do have better personalities for small apartments.” That sequence—post, reply, counter-reply—is essentially how everyday conversation goes.
Nowadays, people often use microblogging platforms to rant incoherently. These rants usually focus on whatever crisis they are in or whatever thing they are outraged about today.
Then they turn around and complain that they are not getting engagement. It’s like going on a date with someone where they talk about themselves for the entire date. They ask you nothing about you and then get upset that you are not participating in a conversation about them that makes no room for you. The lack of engagement is because they are creating a space others cannot participate in. They’re not actually interested in speaking with people. They want affirmation and validation.
What prompted this was me going through a few people’s profiles on Mastodon and Bluesky. The norm is random, incoherent, incomprehensible bursts of rants, random political shares, and compulsive likes of porn. When people reply, there is no meaningful back-and-forth. On the reply side of things, people who weren’t implicitly invited to reply are ranting in other people’s threads. You have people who create multiple threads containing rambling rants that don’t prompt any type of engagement outside of maybe shares, and then you have people barging into others’ threads with a rant of their own, unprompted, because they were served the thread and compulsively had to reply.
The insane thing is that everyone ends up believing the solution is to create yet another social media platform that imports the same problematic cultural schema. I don’t know what people want—but they don’t want to speak with each other in a conversation, that’s for certain. They hate conversing with one another so much that they’d rather talk to LLMs.
For example, this is shared through a social networking protocol (i.e., ActivityPub) such that microblogging software can access it. However, I am using blogging software (i.e., WordPress), and this is a blog post. It’s tacitly not intended to be a dialogue, though there is an implicit invitation for comments. I myself am probably not interested in your responses or reactions. That is why this is a well-thought-out blog post and not me incoherently ranting about the news. I haven’t formed a parasocial relationship with every politician who is consequential to my life. Most largely influential people who engage with media as part of their profession aren’t handling their own social media. As a result, these unhinged people aren’t talking to whoever they think they are.
I think there is a mismatch between the specifications of the format and people’s expectations. Your dark night of the soul moments should go in a space that is meant for random, chaotic screaming.