zlacker

> The relevant discussions are here

Squirmy

>>somebr+(OP)
I thought it was a decent effort to point out content in the most relevant place.

The relevant site guideline is to assume that others are commenting in good faith.

>>thephy+ja
I thought it was lame. I broke the guidelines. I assume bad faith from everything that person wrote. You should probably report me.

I also assume bad faith from you so you can add that to your tattling.

>>somebr+Ck
This is a pretty cynical post, but I'm not going to downvote/report it.

I actually really like the guidelines of this site. @dang and the other administrators do a good job at keeping the conversation mostly civil and the guidelines are great principles and rules to aim for that end.

Maybe if you assume bad faith of a post (anywhere on social media), it might be time to skip over it or take a break.

I'm listening to the RabbitHole podcast[1] right now which is a pretty interesting analysis by the NYTimes of how social media / online content fuels impactful psycho/social impact on participants. I hope you find it interesting.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/column/rabbit-hole