Social Media Etiquette

[robdrimmie]

I am curious what you think my ad hominem attack is?

Tone policing is a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

[danbrotherston]

I am curious what you think my ad hominem attack is?

Tone policing is a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Thanks for clarifying, I pointed out, "tone" is not the right word, in my original tweet I called the response "tone deaf", which is what I meant.

I'd hardly call it an ad hominem attack in this context--I'm not calling for them to be civil, I'm calling them out for ignoring my actual grievences, I think that is a fair complaint.

[robdrimmie]

Tone policing is a form of the ad hominem logical fallacy.

Thanks for clarifying, I pointed out, "tone" is not the right word, in my original tweet I called the response "tone deaf", which is what I meant.

I'd hardly call it an ad hominem attack in this context--I'm not calling for them to be civil, I'm calling them out for ignoring my actual grievences, I think that is a fair complaint.

You literally said "But the tone is incredibly poor". If it didn't communicate what you'd intended that's cool, I am in favour of you recanting and changing your words. But if you're going to argue that those specific words that you used are not tone policing (which is by definition ad hominem) I've made my case in opposition and am good to let it stand as is.

[danbrotherston]

Thanks for clarifying, I pointed out, "tone" is not the right word, in my original tweet I called the response "tone deaf", which is what I meant.

I'd hardly call it an ad hominem attack in this context--I'm not calling for them to be civil, I'm calling them out for ignoring my actual grievences, I think that is a fair complaint.

You literally said "But the tone is incredibly poor". If it didn't communicate what you'd intended that's cool, I am in favour of you recanting and changing your words. But if you're going to argue that those specific words that you used are not tone policing (which is by definition ad hominem) I've made my case in opposition and am good to let it stand as is.

Yes, that is what I mean, it is my mistake, I misspoke and did not say what I intended to communicate.

I intended to convey that the tone deafness of the reply makes for a poor response.

You may still consider this “tone policing” but as a resident it’s frustrating that the only response the city has given me after repeated engagement is to chastise me for what public profiles I @tted. I find that “tone deaf” on their part.

[ijmorlan]

I think the tone policing happening here is coming from the City, which saw fit to complain about an @ while continuing to totally ignore the substance at issue, which is that the cycling policy voted into place by Council apparently means nothing when it comes to actually designing our streets one at a time.

[robdrimmie]

You may still consider this “tone policing” but as a resident it’s frustrating that the only response the city has given me after repeated engagement is to chastise me for what public profiles I @tted. I find that “tone deaf” on their part.

Your revised words are not tone policing, nor did I imply they were. I explicitly quoted the phrase I took issue with.

Scare quoting tone policing is an interesting choice.

[robdrimmie]

I think the tone policing happening here is coming from the City

The City's complaint - regardless of whether it has merit, and I do agree that its merit is in question - isn't about tone. Saying "this action is not appropriate" is not tone policing. It may be incorrect, it may be disrespectful, it may be a logical fallacy, but it does not meet the definition of tone policing.

[danbrotherston]

You may still consider this “tone policing” but as a resident it’s frustrating that the only response the city has given me after repeated engagement is to chastise me for what public profiles I @tted. I find that “tone deaf” on their part.

Your revised words are not tone policing, nor did I imply they were. I explicitly quoted the phrase I took issue with.

Scare quoting tone policing is an interesting choice.

I didn't mean to imply you were, I wasn't sure what opinion you would have of it, again, I misunderstood from your original comment since I didn't actually go back and re-read what I had written before until you quoted it back to me.

And nothing implied by "scare quoting" it was simply that I was using your words is all.

[Coke6pk]

Going back to the original question, here is my two cents...

If the account is used by an employee in their role to tweet messages on behalf of the employer, then yes, they are fair game.  (ie. Mayor, Public Health Director, Police Chief, etc.)

If the account mentions their employer, but they don't use it for official communication, then IMO they are not fair game.

If their account doesn't mention their employer, then also not fair game.

In my social media, you can figure out my employer even though I don't broadcast it.  If someone was to @ me in relation to my employment, that would be a quick way to be blocked.  I work a set number of hours, and my social media presence is outside of those hours.  I don't want to be bothered by work when I'm at home.

Coke