@aral i've long railed about calling people "resources" - and i think you're right about calling them users as well.

i'll try to change.

@aral Users sounds like consumers. A word i i have found insane all my life.

@aral users vs programs?

@aral I make a point of doing this as much as possible. Especially when the people I’m talking about are going to see the words.

@aral that'd fit nicely with the ability mark an account as a bot or not. "There are 41 people on this instance, and 1 bot"

@aral I think we will also need to reframe "audience"

@aral I love this. Such a small thing, but really feels different.

@aral Monthly active people... strangely appeals to the responsibility that goes along with it.

@aral Tron fights for the people doesn't quite have the same ring to it though 😁

I like this, how about folk? It's the same number of characters.

@aral It is a great idea!

@aral strictly speaking, neither is accurate, because one person can hold multiple accounts and several folk may share one account. so "accounts" is the only metric that can be measured, which makes the whole count a bit meaningless

"there are people on this instance", though, is a sentiment we should all get behind ;-)

@aral Excellent idea! 👍 🌺

@aral There are also accounts for projects, companies, bot, and so on. Not sure if we should call them all "people".

@aral that's right, I am not an user of cannabis, I am a person of cannabis.

@aral there are only 2 sectors that call their clients users, and the other one is drug dealers

@aral
Ah yes! I vote Yes for this! The people of the Fediverse! ✊

always found the notion of 'user' disempowering at best, classist at worst. it usually comes from techno-elitist jargon. 'users' are opposed to those who see themselves as the true masters: the developpers, the admins... who often don't realize they're dispensible, usually in the ocket of some owner, investor, etc...

so yay! power to the #fediverse (and other) 'people'!

@aral@mastodon.ar.al many but not all users are humans.

for example, my instance has 3 users but only 1 human. it would be kind of weird to see botsin.space proclaim how many humans are on their instance. in the fediverse case I guess you could split the count based on if an account is marked as a bot.

@aral As an aside - when you mentioned the number 42: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_from_The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#The_Answer_to_the_Ultimate_Question_of_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything_is_42

🙂

@aral There are only two industries who call their customers “users” and follow the marketing strategy of, “If you give them a little bit for free they’ll keep coming back for more.”

@aral Sounds good to me. :flwr:

@aral I have a work colleague who always says "humans" and works to get everybody else to do it too. They love it when he sees executives say it for the first time because of the mix of response they can see on their faces.

@aral @ParadeGrotesque while I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, I think it’s important to acknowledge where the term “user” came from, which, really, is libraries.

Telephones had subscribers, but libraries had users. That same terminology spread to early software systems. So I think in an important way, these big corps have abused the term “user” significantly. Their “users” are really their product.

@aral but what about bota? And multiple account ppl? I understand the need, but it would be technically incorrect

@aral but is it factual? With bots, people with multiple accounts, "dead" accounts etc. wouldn't the even more abstract "accounts" be more precise?

@aral had exactly the same thought today when i started writing "users" i a toot. Switched to writing "people" instead. Thanks for sharing this!

@aral I agree completely. The term user comes, I suppose, from economics, like consumer. we're people! Good

@aral We used to have a saying in of the old teams I was part of that there are two occasions where there are users. It is either with Drugs or within IT. ;).

@aral How about 'peeps'?

@aral I have multiple otherkin mutuals who don't exactly identify with "people", so I generally prefer words like "beings" to acknowledge them :)

@aral great point, thank you!

@aral there are mastodon bots, though

Maybe “There are 34 people and 8 bots on this instance” would be perfect?

@aral I love this idea! I'm adding #peopleNotUsers to my bio

@aral Good thought. Thank you. Considering multiple accounts one person might have (like me) and all the bots, maybe the suggested use is not an ideal example. But whenever one can be certain to talk about real people behind accounts, I will definitely think twice (lest I just feed into the commercial tech giant's paradigm).

@aral What about the people with multiple accounts? Or brands like KDE or Matrix? 🤔

@aral however we are people that *use* it, so either seems fine really

@aral I try to do this at work. IT contractors and developers are constantly referring to “users.” I try always to say “co-workers.” “One of my co-workers couldn’t figure out how to print” makes the relationship much more about how we all struggle with technology at times. “A user couldn’t figure out how to print” makes them sound like a cog in machine that doesn’t know how things work. Same situation, and perhaps equally frustrating, but one less dehumanizing.

@aral going to be a hard habit to break but in principle yes totally

@aral

Yes and no.

The drawback is that you could "forget" that there are people outside the fediverse, (by choice or because they don't have access to internet for example).

And devs often forget the non-users 😅

But like all words, there is good and bad in both choices. Perhaps it is time to use "people" now, and switch to "users" in some years ^^

@aral Great idea. Although in the public library sector some are calling their patrons ‘customers’ while I prefere to call them ‘users’ (the word ‘patron’ has no meaning in Dutch, which is my native language).

@aral, under users you can also count bot user accounts, though under people you can't. For every non-bot I think person would be more proper.

@aral I really hate to be that actually guy, but shouldn't it be "persons"? The word "people" refers to a single group of individuals.

@aral most definitely. I’ve been on a crusade of sorts at work to stop calling people “resources.”

@aral principle of least surprise: stick to social media norms. "user" is a useful term with context and its not offensive. also a user might be a bot, not a person.

@aral I have a really bad habit of doing this in my documentation at work. It sounds a little more professional (but that may be just because its industry standard), but it's so cold. I'd like to move away from it. I've been trying to use "people" and "visitors" more.

@aral
Yes! #botsArePeopleToo

@aral As a former long time technical writer I think you are totally right on this one. This is roughly the subject of my book Survival in the Rlentless New: A Techmical Writer Gets a Head. More language suggestions welcome!

I am not a user!

@aral what about the bots? 👀

@aral
Sounds good, will try to change 🤝

@aral but bots aren't people 😬

@aral I agree. To be reconsidered, perhaps, when Mastodon becomes truly addictive 😉.

@aral Except there is the ability to run bot accounts on Mastodon (when you sign up you designate whether it’s a bot or not), which makes that account a ‘not people’. Do you count that account amongst those 42 or not? I suspect Eugen and others considered that in the wording. :-)

@aral - I like it.

@aral

Who says we're all people?

@aral I've been trying to get HR to stop talking about "resources" and start talking about "engineers" at every company I've worked at for the past 8 years for exactly these reasons!

@aral Reminds me of a TED talk by James Howard Kunstler.

"Please, please, stop referring to yourselves as "consumers." OK? Consumers are different than citizens. Consumers do not have obligations, responsibilities and duties to their fellow human beings. And as long as you're using that word consumer in the public discussion, you will be degrading the quality of the discussion we're having. And we're going to continue being clueless going into this very difficult future that we face."

@aral yes

@aral

Hot take: The word "people" at some point sparked that term "sheeple" for framing. Some insist on being "users" ("I'm not a dev, just a user, don't want to be bothered!"), and some act derogatory on the other end. Yes, and both use any language to communicate that.
Think of "_people_ _using_ the platform/network" - good or bad?

I'm sorry. I see the problem more in the mindset rather than in the language.

@aral This. Users has the same weird dissociative quality as governments referring to citizens as 'customers'. No, I am not a 'customer' of the electoral, health, education, social service ministries. I'm a voter, patient, student, and citizen.

@aral I remember "users" being called "lusers" elsewhere and elsewhen. Users sounds almost nice by comparison. People is better.

@aral Excellent suggestion

@aral Interesting thought. I've also observed a strange (but increasing) tendency to refer to people as "that" rather than "who". So all for bringing back a bit of humanity; God knows, we could use it these days...

@aral I refer you to @Slavin's excellent essay, "Design as Participation":

https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/design-as-participation/release/1?version=11

@aral no. i am on my own instance with three users, four if you include the one bot I set up.

You cannot equate users to people – which was not your intent to begin with as far as I understand.

@aral Humans, since eventually bots will come and I’d like to know a server’s human/bot ratio.

@aral Either is wrong I'd say, half (even all) of the accounts could be bots.

@aral I 100% agree with the sentiment.

Within product UI I wonder if a term like "persona" is both technically accurate, doesn't imply that we are all just consumers, acknowledges that it might be a bot and humans might have more than one...

Given that in some languages it literally means "person" gives me some pause... is it translatable?

@aral fine, I won't call them feds.

@aral "people" sounds more nice, yes, but: +1 for "accounts".

@aral I don’t necessarily disagree, but 42 user accounts doesn’t necessarily mean 42 people.

For example, my instance lists 10 users but there are only 3 people that actually use it. The rest are automated accounts for my projects and mirrors for a couple of Twitter/Facebook pages.

@aral absolutely. there should be some distinction between “people”, “bots”, and “entities” (tied to businesses)

@aral I agree. Users sound like people who use drugs.

Definitely “users”. <bleep/>

@aral I like the sentiment, but “user” is often more accurate in context.

In tech, it's indeed used to distinguish from designers / programmers / engineers, but that's because we need a language for people that are going to “use” the interfaces that we are working on. “User experience” (UX) is precise, whereas “person experience” is not.

I'd add that a user isn't necessarily a person. On social media it could be a bot, or a company.

On "othering / colonial framing", yikes, I have no words.

@aral love it. Big facts.

@aral love the people I am finding here so far

@aral

Calling people people in this actively anti-human era would be lovely. I will worry about the war over who a person is later.

@aral What about bot accounts, or media accounts that represent companies?

Users and developers are different. Developers build a platform because they are paid by the platform's owners. Users will use a platform if they find it useful or enjoyable.

@aral yes, yes, yes!!!

@aral I like this idea. I will make an effort to adopt this change.

@aral Realistically, though, what happens when I create a business brand? Or an information bot?

"Accounts" with a type ("person", "organisation", "infobot", etc) would be a better fit I would have thought?

@aral What a refreshing thought. :) I remember back when I used to work with Voc Rehab agencies, people were "consumers". As if we could do nothing more than just consume. I used to hate that so much and yet I was told I was just being difficult. Language matters, people matter.

@aral They don't know that, though. What if I have >1 account? What if the account is for an organisation? Or a goldfish?

@aral but how are you going to measure KPIs like DAUMAU if you call them people????? (sarcasm)

@aral Well said!

@aral
I think people is rather species'ist.
How about... sentient entities?

Keeps the door open for general AI and small furry creatures from alpha centauri.

@aral I try to do this in the documentation I write these days. It sometimes gets resistance, but I think it is the way to go (unless people is too ambiguous for some reason).

@aral completely agreed

Words shape culture.