I was expecting a list of unrelatable norms, but I think these apply for most people who regularly use digital means of communication, regardless of age.
Gen Z Netiquettes
121–130 of 269 posts
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#122Every time some new generation starts to create its own identity, some proportion of the previous dominant generation reacts defensively by attacking it with wilful ignorance and disdain. It's a tragic way to age. Worse than a ponytail and a motorbike. If you find yourself finding smug, try looking at an old Reddit rage comic/4chan greentext/usenet flamewar, depending on your age.
There's a lot more to gen z than was on this blog post, but what is there seems like a recipe for creating personality disorders.
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#123This deserves a new RFC - the original is outdated: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1855
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#124So many of this rules feel like coddling other person's anxiety through obligatory reciprocation. Social media platforms approve.
That’s a great way of putting it
An entire generation has been trained by Mark Zuckerberg to boost engagement on his properties
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#125Might be a bit of a boomer opinion but the thing that kept coming up for me as I was reading that was “damn, that’s a lot of social insecurity built in by default to almost every interaction and conversation”. Not all of it obviously and I don’t even think that’s strictly a Gen Z thing specifically (much of it could have been written about my mother for example) but JFC it sounds emotionally draining way to live your…
I find this often meeting 'zoomers' in person. In contrast to the glued to the phone cliche, they're often enormously attentive, in an almost pained way. Incredibly careful in how they speak and - in accordance with the 'triggered' cliche - very easily upset or offended. Not only by transgression of their numerous linguistic prohibitions, but even misunderstandings about potential transgressions. The simplest way to…
I'd like to propose look at it an alternative way; language has changed to be much more focused on intent, interpretation, and cognizant of your conversational partners.
I work with a fairly large and diverse IT team with age ranges from 22 to 60+; a lot of this involves disagreements as is natural with any conversations with a large group of people.
Discussions with the younger demographic are far more productive and faster as they're quite specific in their statements and when there is a disagreement, they put it out there fairly openly, explaining intent and feelings, and when I reciprocate, we get to a faster understanding of one another and any potential misunderstandings we might have had, view points we hadn't considered, or parts that aren't clear for us. The initial conversations take a bit longer, but ultimately end up with all parties understanding the situation well. It's quite healthy I think.
With the older age group, I definitely know _when_ they're angry or upset about something or when they disagree with me, but I rarely know _why_. Trying to slow down the conversation and have the same "help me understand what you're thinking/feeling so we can better communicate" often is not received well, and while the conversations are more direct initially, they last far longer and result in more tirades, walls of text, and dozens of arguments with loose or no connection to the topic at hand.
I don't see the younger persons as being sensitive, I see them as being specific; I think they're better trained socially to express themselves and reflect on their reactions and their state, and embracing this by participating in the same way is very freeing. I can have what might be considered difficult discussions (corrections, disciplinary actions, etc) and understand that while likely the conversation partner is not happy, they feel understood, I've presented my point of view, and when presented with new information, all sides have been very receptive.
With my older colleagues, the same sensitivity and emotions are there, but I'm far less aware of it even if I specifically take actions to show I want to understand more.
There is definitely a culture clash, and I think that the reactions of "snow flakes" and "triggered" are not accurate, and it's more about two persons separated by a common language failing to communicate. Given how well conversations with my younger colleagues go, I'm more inclined to prefer this model.
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Logged in to say the same; all of these have ultimately formed back in IRC days and have aged remarkably well since The only one that is new (and therefore annoying to me as an Old Internet Man) is the insistance of adding emojis into every sentence For a while I could guess someones approximate age because of it, but now some of my 40+ friends have started emojiing like a 14 year olds too
Emojis are a more granular and expressive form of the more traditional lol, rofl, haha, :), :(. They’re a useful side channel for expressing tone.
They're really not though, because they render differently on different devices. If I send a gun emoji, it may render as a squirt gun for you for instance. Very different meanings.
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#127The full stop thing has been around since IRC networks, or I imagine any quick-response short message platform. No one ever explicitly explains it or notes it, you just pick up on it. Same with the difference colours of laughter "lol, rofl, haha, hahaha, lmao, ha." They're all just laughing but I bet you had different ideas about how each of them feel. This happens with language at large, synonymous words pick up nua…
Logged in to say the same; all of these have ultimately formed back in IRC days and have aged remarkably well since The only one that is new (and therefore annoying to me as an Old Internet Man) is the insistance of adding emojis into every sentence For a while I could guess someones approximate age because of it, but now some of my 40+ friends have started emojiing like a 14 year olds too
The absolutely annoying thing about emojis is that different platforms render them in different ways.
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#128Not stated, but implicit: If you have an Android phone, throw it away. No one wants to see your green bubbles, and no one can see if you've seen their texts if you have an Android. Get an iPhone, like 90% of Gen Z. Or gtfo.
people still have iPhones?
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. It’s written to be funny but I can vouch that these rules, such as they are, are all more or less correct.
i'm millenial/gen-x cusp, and they all seemed pretty reasonable and intuitive to me, EXCEPT number 3 -- a good-old fashioned simple smiley is passive-aggressive and cold to gen-z??
I often wonder if please is passive aggressive and I’m gen-x
Re: Gen Z Netiquettes
#130I'm far from gen z, but I spent a lot of time communicating through chat in the past ~20 years, and I've gotta say, to me, most of this is not "Gen Z" stuff, but "chat native" stuff. It becomes pretty obvious pretty soon when somebody doesn't really know the (for lack of a better word) language of these small nuances and a bunch of others, like message length, timings, etc. It's not done to be edgy, or to fit in, or…
A lot of it isn’t just chat native stuff imo.
All the rules around instagram likes and reposting, the rules around “k”, that “:)” is passive aggressive etc. A lot of that feels juvenile which makes sense if it’s a gen z post. I’d guess it’ll stop once out of teens and early to mid twenties.
I think when people are more secure/confident they stop doing as much meta analysis of this kind.