jaz π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ
Greetings #Fediverse members! I've been joining a number of conversations about the recent growth on the Fediverse, and I keep hearing the term "users". I'd like to remind everyone here that the community is made up of people, humans, members. "Users" dehumanises, alienates, and allows for a particular brand of technospeak that smacks of addicted eyeballs and lost privacy. I am a member of the community, not a user of software. Please try to reduce, ahem, using the word. 14 comments
Eliot 'Dukov' Earle
@jaz I prefer the terms 'person' or 'account' while I totally get where the whole user thing comes from. As a long time Linux/Unix user, adduser, and userland, are familiar concepts and the whole user nomenclature is written deep into general systems language. I doubt that can be changed. I do think we can change how we talk about accounts in applications though. Not everyone gets the user thing and the word has negative connotations when applied to people outside of IT systems.
jaz π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ
@Spadge precisely. I've made my fair share of software for people to use, and there's a business need to refer to the humans interacting with it, but not to their collective face. "Accounts", "patrons", or "customers" (even if they're not paying), or "members" if you build community software; there's plenty of ways to keep the human at the center of the interaction. 
Miraπ¦
@jaz Yes! the difference in usage of a "contributor", a "participant", and a "user" very nicely captures different people approach and expectations regarding a platform or an online space. Alas not sure there's a nice replacement for a "user of a software" when that's what you really mean? ("client"/"customer" make sense in some contexts, a bit harder to pull off "tusky operator")
jaz π΄σ §σ ’σ ·σ ¬σ ³σ Ώ
@mira customer is perfectly reasonable if someone is deriving value from your software, even if there's no fee for using it. Fish can be slippery customers, but I'm certain they don't pay for the privilege. I understand the term of art, I'm guilty of using it myself, but we have a fantastic opportunity to redraw the relationship between protocols, platforms, and people.
Rackuur :artpaw:
@jaz In the olden times, Users where Gods. Programs prayed to us and thanked us for their existence. ;)
Moqume
@jaz in IT, "users" is commonplace and does not have any negative connotation. Additionally, it is a social difference where "user" could be associated with something negative. For example, "fag" could be used as a negative word in the US, whereas in the UK it is synonymous to "cigarette". Similarly, I could give "member" a negative meaning, such as "member of a cult". So IMHO best to leave it as each individual's preference as long it isn't universally negative.
R. J. Gumby ββββ
πΈπΉ
@jaz I totally get your point but, having worked in technical support, I see a user as a person who uses the system and those who use the system are the reason the system exists. Our primary concern is to support the person who uses the system and make sure that the system meets their needs. At least from my point of view, the term "user" is not demeaning; in fact, the term indicates a person of primary importance. |
Gregory's Server
@jaz π