Some thoughts on togetherness online

At 2019-12-25 @TeethTeethTeeth@mastodon.social noted “What we have not yet
innovated is a way to be silent and close to people online. We can only reduce
distance through the loudness of words and that is tiring, it is not always
preferable[.]” ( https://fosstodon.org/web/statuses/103369883038281804 ) This
resonated with me. Also, I hadn't the slightest clue on how to solve the
problem.

First, what does being silent together in meatspace mean? Most obviously, it is
a kind of shared experience, since it implies physical proximity. Second, the
mood of the persons involved is communicated, as well as a rough indication
about what they're doing. E.g. staring at their cell phone, but not exactly what
the cell phone is used for, or reading a book, but not exactly what it says on
the page which just made them chuckle. This also gives a hint whether they will
be receptable for interruption. Idly browsing a newspaper is not the same as
trying to beat the end level boss in a game. Finally, the actors are available
for active communication, but have no active desire to do so. I don't know how
many times I've had no desire for speaking, but then I stumbled across something
which made me immediately want to share it.

So, to reiterate the arbitrary collection of points above: A shared frame of
(in-)activity. Hints about the mood. Basic information about activity. Implied
availability.

To start at the most problematic part, mood, I find having a computer constantly
sampling my mood, or having to constantly inform a piece of software about it,
extraordinary bad ideas. On the other hand, perhaps mood and shared fram can be
combined? Consider a MOO ( https://www.moo.mud.org/moo-faq/moo-faq-1.html#ss1.1
), or MMORPG, where you can enter rooms with suitable decoration or look, but
opposed to most games, the point would be to hang out, in silence. I am not an
online gamer, but I assume this has been done a long time. What I think may be
different is having the state of “active idling” as default, the user is
available, but they also have no current intention of questing or orating. The
software for such a system must also be non-intrusive, and therefor also by
implication not a resource hog.

Continuing on the thought of online games being the closest to being quiet
together we already have, I feel the big difference is games usually want the
user to be active inside the game. This is of course rather obvious, but it is
the opposite of what being quiet together means. Perhaps the analogy of a world
with avatars, textual or graphical, is a blind alley?

A totally different approach from online games might be a totally abstract
n-dimensional space you could mark yourself as existing in. One could have axes
like “Absentmindedness”, “Emotional availability”, and “Need for silence”. This
strays far too close to pushing a lot of cumbersome data into a system, where it
also is pretty ripe for abuse to my tastes. Also, as you sit there, programming,
reading, writing, or something completely different, you would also move through
that space silently, and it would be a terrible experience interrupting your
read every five minutes to update how engrossed you are in your book.

I am no closer to a solution than I was when I started writing this, but it
feels good to shout into the void. That we do know how to do with computers.

2019-12-25, Steinar Knutsen