Online communication Archives

Most of us have been online in various groups long enough that we’ve learned some basic netiquette…I think. You’ve learned not to type ALL IN CAPS because that is the equivalent of shouting. We know not to troll, spam, or cyberstalk (and if you don’t, the help you need is beyond what I can offer in this post and you probably aren’t interested anyway).

What I’m addressing are some of the more subtle aspects of social media EQ (emotional intelligence). These are some of the things that make you an interesting person to interact with rather than that person to whom no one responds or ends up in an admin’s doghouse or even blocked. Here’s a few tips from five years as a page admin on a social media platform to help you avoid being that person:

Know the group rules and don’t treat them as suggestions for other people. If you don’t like the rules, leave the group and find one whose rules fit you. Don’t argue with admins. Diligent ones are screening for spam and out of line posting, and will probably just block you.
Spend some time in a group before you post to see what its like, and read discussion threads before posting. Otherwise, you’ll say something that’s already been dealt with or “step in” something that you didn’t know was there and wish you could get out.
Some people feel they need to comment on everything. You ask for recommendations for thrillers. There always seem to be the people who feel compelled to tell you they hate thrillers, don’t read thrillers, or are creeped out by thrillers. That’s perfectly fine. Different strokes. But this discussion wasn’t for you but for the people who either love the genre or want to get into it. You just threw a bucket of icewater on the thread.
Then there are the people who like to argue and assume it is OK to engage in disagreements with another person. News flash: not every person likes to do that! Emotional intelligence explores whether others want to discuss their ideas. Ask questions that are open ended, not leading, and are seeking to understand. For example, “would you be willing to discuss how you came to hold this view?” Or if you want to take issue, you might share, “I see things differently. Would you be open to discussing those differences?” Notice how each of those examples ask permission rather than just barging in and unloading what you think.
You also don’t want to hijack a discussion. If the discussion is about what makes a good indie bookstore, people will not like you for talking about your favorite online bookseller.
Don’t post “canned responses” or toss offs (“that’s ‘woke’ “), or worse yet, respond with memes. These are the tools people use to shut down discussion.
Maybe this is a pet peeve. It has become increasingly common to post .gifs as comments. They consume space, they are usually just giant “like” buttons, and depending on a person’s settings might not even render. (Maybe this is an admin peeve, because I monitor comments on each post.)
Disagree about ideas but always affirm people. You want people to assume you have a brain in your head and put some thought into what you say? Treat others the same way.
It helps to actually read what you are commenting on rather than commenting on what you think the person said. Worse yet, someone posts an article and, without reading, the person posts information that is in the article or asks a question that is in the article. For those of us who read (or wrote) the article, you just told us that you didn’t bother to read it or are just showing off your knowledge.
Finally, it is considerate to interact with what others post and not just post your own stuff. Some groups are just competing monologues rather than real discussions. And definitely respond when people comment or ask questions about what you write.

All this suggests participating in an online discussion involves thought and care for others. Often we just dash off comments as we hurriedly scroll through our feeds. Actually, I’m not sure that it is altogether different from in-person conversations, although online conversations lack both verbal and non-verbal cues for which emojis are a poor substitute. I suspect working on these qualities will yield you benefits in both the online and in-person world. And hopefully, we are the same person in both worlds. That is yet another way we don’t want to be that person.

blogging-blur-communication-261662 I’m working out some ideas here, so I’d love to hear what others think about this. I recently was appointed the director of a national effort of the collegiate ministry I work with that we describe as a “digital first” effort to encourage and engage aspiring scholars who want to link their faith and academic life. It has me thinking about the place of online media in forming communities around similar interests; in this case around faithful Christian presence in the university world and what that looks like.

Much has been made of the movement of people from “on-the-ground” communities in particular places to online, or what some would call, virtual communities. Many think these online communities are poor substitutes for “on the ground” community, which for some is real community. Church attendance dwindling? Blame it on the internet. That sort of thing. Inevitably, online forms are opposed to “on the ground” forms, and labelled inferior.

A book I’ve been reading recently, Ecologies of Faith in a Digital Age has me re-examining assumptions. One of the most startling insights for me came from their attention to the letters of the Apostle Paul. Paul, like all of us, could only be in one place at a time. Over the course of his life, his travels took him from modern day Syria through Asia Minor and Greece, to Rome, and perhaps onward to Spain. He wrote to groups of believers where he had started churches (in Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, Thesalonica, and Philippi, and to groups he had never visited (in Colossae and Rome). Twenty-eight percent of the New Testament consists of Paul’s letters and he wasn’t the only letter writer! What is striking is that Paul both seeks to communicate spiritual truth and instruction with those he is not with, but also assumes deep friendships and collaboration. He describes the Philippians as “partners with” him (synkoinonia) and the Romans as people he “longs to see.”

I wonder if Paul would have been a blogger today. Or would he have used podcasts to stay in touch with and instruct those he was away from for whom he cared? Maybe they would have used video conferencing or Facebook groups (I’m not sure he would have used Twitter–have you seen some of his sentences, particularly in Greek!). Then Paul would come visit, or perhaps gather leaders from many places at a single location for a conference

I wonder if a better way to think about these things is to see face to face and remote communication as complementary means of sustaining community and maintaining the values and mission we are engaged in together. Rather than either-or, there is a both-and engagement that is rich and substantive and two-way or even networked, whether we are together or not.

There are educators I know who have taught both in the classroom and online, and often have found the online interactions superior in terms of thoughtfulness of responses, and the engagement of quieter students who may not speak up in classes. Much hinges in how you set up what the book I mentioned earlier calls the “ecology” of a given context. While social media is justly vilified for echo chambers, bullying, and toxic discourse, I’ve also seen online contexts where differing perspectives are aired with both candor and mutual respect, and where people extend genuine and deep care for each other on and offline.

Finally, I’m struck that what makes this work, for Paul, and for us, is genuine affection and deep regard, even love. for those one is interacting remotely with. I’ve received many warm and thoughtful online messages. I remember those messages when I see the people who have written them, and it strengthens the bonds we share.

It is true that all forms of communication with those remote from us cannot easily convey all that we would be able to express verbally and non-verbally face to face. Actually, it makes me more intentional, more thoughtful. It makes me think and work harder, and read and listen more carefully. To write a response, particularly if it is not a tweet, requires more deliberation than off-the-cuff statements.

Yes, my hunch is that Paul would have written a blog. What do you think?