Qualities of conversations on non-commercial social networks
In a previous text (Praise for small scale) I wrote at one point:
But, in these non-commercial networks, the most important thing is that, as participation there is generally devoid of the pragmatic notion of seeking advantages, benefits and gains (the very “small” scale of the network favors this stance), the people participating will orient themselves, move around, connect basically for the opportunity of new encounters, new conversations, good conversations with people we meet there and with whom we discover affinities and common personal interests.
When I talk about “good conversations”, I'm valuing my experiences of conversations on the networks I use (Hubzilla, (streams) and Forte) and, especially, conversations with people who also use these same non-commercial social networks – because, in this context, people have the same conversation conditions.
When I talk about conversation conditions, I'm referring to three things:
1) The ability to define, in my initial post, who the (potential) participants in the conversation will be;
2) The absence of a character limit on posts and comments (this is the case on the network (streams));
3) A conversation dynamic in which all the people (defined as participants in the conversation) will receive everyone's comments, without anyone having to “mention”/“tag” anyone in the comments.
When you write your post or comments in a text window with no character limit – and with automatic saving of the text you type – you really don't have to worry about anything other than what you want to write (and how you want to write it). Your reasoning, thinking, rhythm, style, breath will not be disturbed by the need to pay attention to the character limit of the post window (to know if it's better to stop at that sentence and continue in the next window). Your thoughts and writing just flow.
Similarly, the naturalness of the conversation is enhanced when, at the time of writing your next comment, you simply write the text, without the need to “mention”/“tag” any participants in the conversation, because you know that everyone will see your comment in the conversation and everyone will also receive the notification informing them that you have made the comment (i.e. those who have chosen to receive this type of notification).
As an example, here's some information about a conversation I took part in two months ago.
I made the initial post – on one of the channels of my account on the network (streams). When making the post, in order to define its audience, I chose to use a particular access list – in which I had registered four people. So there were five of us in the conversation. (I've never met them in person. I met them online a few years ago as participants in the (streams) and Hubzilla networks). The conversation unfolded into 47 comments, made over 20 days. 14,876 words were written – or, 88,801 characters (including spaces). Two people participated more in the conversation than the other three. Even so, if we calculate the average length of the comments (considering all 47), we get an average of approximately 1,889 characters (with spaces) per comment. That's right: an average of almost 2,000 characters per comment, over 47 comments in 20 days. It was a very informative, rich, in-depth conversation. And it wasn't a one-off event, an exception; I've taken part in conversations on (streams) that were longer (in number of characters) and more extensive (in duration) than this one.
Of course, this isn't always the case, nor does it need to be or should it always be the case. But when a topic finds the people interested in the conversation, it happens. However, certain things only happen when the conditions are right – and there (on these networks I use) the conditions are met for a conversation of this kind to happen comfortably, fluidly, peacefully and safely.
Today, in mainstream media, in societies, there is a kind of consensus that “social networks” are the terrain of shallow, quick, short, superficial, marketeering discourse... Well, that depends on what you know, what you're looking at. This is not what I see here, from my specific corner of non-commercial social networks. (Unfortunately, some non-commercial networks have decided to copy certain characteristics of commercial networks – which do not favor the emergence and development of good conversations).
Years ago, when a commercial social network appeared offering its users a 140-character window, what was its intention in doing so? What kind of “conversation” did that network plan for to emerge from that structure? And what new engagement and monetization calculation made that network recalibrate its character limit to 280? This network was the reference and inspiration for the creation (a year after Hubzilla appeared in 2015) of a network in the field of non-commercial social networks. But was the commercial network in question a reasonable model to take as a reference?
The conversation I mentioned above, developed in 47 comments, if it were to take place on a network that limited posts to 140 characters, would require the production of 634 posts. On a network with a limit of 280 characters, 317 posts would be needed. On a network with a 500-character limit, 177 posts would be needed. What are the consequences of imposing these levels of fragmentation on a conversation? and on the very encouragement and cultivation of thought that develops there?
Yes, the design of a social network modulates the ways in which people will interact and relate – as well as the final quality of their conversations and online experiences.
[June 24, 2025] Updated: June 24, 2025