Peter Toft Jølving (@joelving@mastodon.joelving.dk)
Föderation EN Sa 07.09.2024 17:42:23
@laurenshof I would imagine people to consider such a reply appropriate in much the same situations as tl;dr, which I agree isn't very often.
My own interpretation of its popularity - and the reason I boosted it - is to convey the frustration felt being excluded from a discussion and (perhaps even more relevant) signal paywalled content as unconvincing when presented as part of an ongoing discussion by virtue of it being inaccessible.
Laurens Hof (@laurenshof@indieweb.social)
Föderation EN Sa 07.09.2024 17:59:26
@joelving archive.ph exists
but the bigger problem is still the need to let the other person know this via a reply. if you feel that youre not part of a discussion because of a paywalled link (a framing i have issues with, but lets assume that for now), why not the more simply reaction that the discussion is not for you and simply move on? the large majority of posts are not catered towards me, and thats completely normal
malena / bikes not bombs (@seachanger@alaskan.social)
Föderation EN Sa 07.09.2024 18:43:35
@laurenshof @joelving it points to a more substantive and really irritating group of replies: “you, a stranger, need to perform labor so that I can possess your content”
this group includes the people demanding you Google for them, demanding you contact authors and get “more data”, demanding you go to archive ph instead of them etc
The root ideology is communitu without boundaries or consent
Peter Toft Jølving (@joelving@mastodon.joelving.dk)
Föderation EN Sa 07.09.2024 19:27:22
@seachanger @laurenshof I should add that I would never find any of the contents appropriate for a drive-by comment. I'm not arguing that reply-guys wouldn't use the phrase in bad faith.
In the cases I'm describing, I'm already part of a conversation that will be shut down if we're no longer discussing the same things.