Dentiquette

With every new form of communication we need to find how existing etiquette fits in and what is considered crossing the line, but first we need to find where the line is generally accepted to be. This is different for everyone and is mostly in the eyes of the beholder. This Dent triggered this post, but I'll address this further down.

When I signed up for Identi.ca and started following people it took a while before I understood the point of it enough, or felt I had anything worthwhile to say to actually use it. At the time I chose to subscribe to both the Computer Action Show presenters Bryan and Chris among a few others. The more I grew into using it, the more I noticed the ration of self promotional posts to conversational posts from those two were very high. Every other post was about either:

• Their sponsors (promo codes)
• Begging for people to follow them on YouTube / Facebook / Twitter etc
• Begging for votes for podcasting awards
• Wanting people to sign up to their forums to respond to some flamebait poll

There was the occasional drips of conversation in among all that. I just felt betrayed that to me a service like Identi.ca or it's closed source counterpart Twitter should be about "people having conversations", not self promotion or advertising. I have no problem with people announcing stuff through these services as part of their conversations, I do the same with each new blog post. I restrict this to a single generalized announcement, nothing more, and nothing targeted at anyone specifically.

Within a few months, as I grew into Identi.ca and came to the realization that Bryan and Chris were betraying the spirit of Identi.ca as I see it, I unsubscribed from them and blocked them. It is worth pointing out that with Identi.ca and Twitter you can subscribe or unsubscribe to whoever you wish, so it's not like unsolicited email you can't stop.

The other person I've noticed can get to a similar ratio of self promotion to conversation posts is the Canonical Community Manager Jono Bacon. In his case I see a reason / excuse for this, as his job is to communicate with the Ubuntu community at large via every medium from email, IRC, Twitter, Facebook etc. It's his job to try and get participation on various elements of the Ubuntu project. It's his job (as far as I understand it) to be a foil between Canonical and the community at large. By it's very nature this involves a lot of announcements of blog posts, forum posts, polls etc.

I do note that when Canonical announce a controversial change to Ubuntu, that Jono is on duty to be a lightning rod for the backlash. It's his job to defend the position management have taken whether or not he agrees with it.

Now the post by Randy that triggered this post. Randy has created the tag RSSTQ (Randy's Simple or Silly Tweet Question) for these surveys. It appears to be "opt-in". So why did I get it more than once if I did not opt-in? I DETEST these, I go to great lengths to ensure I am opted out when I sign up for a service and their partners are pre-ticked. I disown any service which opts me in without my consent, or refuses to opt me out. In short, it rubs me the wrong way. For the record I don't consider Randy a spammer, but sending targeted unsolicited Dents is the behavior of a spammer, even if it is just for fun. I am curious what the difference is between:

• Unsolicited Dents seeking your clicking of the attached link and participation
• Unsolicited Dents seeking your clicking of the attached link and participation

One is a spammer, the other apparently is not. I don't see the difference. Perhaps it's the numbers. Perhaps it's OK if you send them to people you know online. Where is the line?

I've noticed issues with Denting or Re-Denting to various groups too. I have fallen foul of those rules myself without realizing it as well as seeing others fall foul of it and get some backlash from group members. It'd be nice if Identi.ca automatically strip the !group !tags from Re-Dents. News announcements don't need repeat after repeat after repeat after repeat to the same group.

It'd help from that angle, but it does not answer what subjects should or should not be Dented to a group. I've seen plenty of iPad stuff being Dented to various Linux groups, which they don't appreciate. I've seen plenty of GNU hardline stuff Dented to Ubuntu, which is just as unwelcome. I've stepped inadvertently over those lines a few times. It comes down to:

• Are you expected to broadly agree with all of that groups ideals to be a member?
• Are you allowed to try and influence that group in another direction?

This is a tricky one, whether it's the Mono crowd trying to create support for Microsoft technology to be included as much as possible in Linux projects, opening them to potential lawsuits down the line when Microsoft decide to pull the rug out, or the GNU people trying to steer projects towards free software. It can be difficult to tell when someone is just repeating something they think to be true, if they are really telling the truth, if they are exaggerating to help sell their point or if they are being intentionally disingenuous for whatever reason, unless you really pay attention. This is not always easy, and the pattern is not spotted by most.

I see debate as a good thing, but not the same battles over and over and over again. The problem I see is the obnoxious nature of some people in the position they take. It brings out the worst in me in response, which is something I don't like being steered into.

Given the 140 character limit on Dents, it's often difficult to get the meaning of a comment too. I've jumped down people's throats because their sarcastic Dent didn't come across to me as sarcastic. I've had the same happen to me. This can cause unintended friction. It's handy if your Dent leaves enough room for a ;) or :/ to show your mood behind the comment, but not always possible. Perhaps upping it slightly to 150 would give more wriggle room, and tempt a few more peeps from the 140 character Twitter.

There is also a problem with genuine opinions compared to paid opinions. Microsoft are well known for disrupting various projects or communities with people working for them, following their agenda, but from the stance of an independent individual with no connection to Microsoft. Often the disruption itself is the goal, it draws resources from the project moving on. It also provides "evidence" of disarray, even if it was provoked to create the evidence. It can sometimes be difficult to tell genuine and paid opinions apart. The same applies to the posting of links to blog posts, articles etc.

The idea of FOSS is that people share ideas, opinions and knowledge, that people from all walks of life communicate with each other to iron out ways to achieve things. It's something all parts of the FOSS community see the value of, regardless of their individual preferences, needs or interests within that broad ideal. So whatever we define as etiquette for something like MicroBlogging, we can't afford to lose that. Without that communication FOSS is dead.