Why I Removed Webmentions Receiving from my Site?

That was part of the one of the two topics that I was planing to suggest for the IndieWeb Camp Düsseldorf. I will not be able to attend because of the biking accident. It might make sense to write my reasons for this down this way.

By the time this post will be published, I will have removed the ability to send me a webmention from this site. Thankfully, as easy it was to add it - little HTML in the head of the page, that easy it was to remove it. I already feel easier, even though I have made changes only to the local version.

I actually think that webmentions are the interesting underlying technology. For some use cases, the ability to be informed of somebody linking to you is very useful. It would be interesting if we would play choose your own adventure or collaborative writing over multiple websites.

But this is not how the webmentions are currently used.

Sure, the protocol is flexible, but the way people are using it on their websites is not. I have yet to see the website that uses it differently then displaying it as the reactions and comments. Which means that if I send a webmention, that means that this posts get to show below them.

If you have ever read my posts, you would have notice that they are not actually content length. Even when I write them as a comment, then don't always stay comment length. Today I wrote a comment on the AO3 story, that was almost 500 words long, and that is not that unusual for me.

None of the 'automatic' ways of showing the webmentions deal with this is a good way.

Not to mention, what if that link is but one link in the text? What if it is not actually a reply? It could be point to more material to read on the topic. Or to the definition. I know I had over 50 links in the article before. In the world where everybody would be using webmentions, does it makes sense to show it under 50 different pages?

To me it looks like that this could delve into some very weird problem, some very weird search engine optimisation problems - where people could link a lot of articles for that. It could delve into the post one does not agree with being on their site. It could mean that this would be liable to be found and scraped by the plagiarization machine.

I can control who can access my site, but I can not control who access the sites of the people that show my posts because of my webmentions.

So I have started to become more careful of who do I send the webmention to. I have been sending them for only direct replies for a while.

But then if I am only willing to send a webmention in a very limited cases, it is fair to accept the webmentions?

This could spiral into a very interesting mussing, but some other mussing actually took more prominence. How social is actually sending webmentions?

I would argue it is not. Or at least, if the use of webmentions are social, it is not because of the underlying technology, but despite of it. Or more likely, despite the social norms around it.

We have talked a lot about removing friction. Tracy asked us to cater to the readers and people without websites, Benji pointed to the Open Heart Protocol to send single emoji as reaction and Alex talked about the technical barriers to webmentions.

I mean, what does it even mean a frictionless communication? Robert shows really well that this is not some objective measure. For some Facebook messager or LinkedIn is a communication with the lease friction, and for some the friction is really big. The same could be said for SMS or email.

I also see the friction differently. One needs to remove the friction from the things it once to do more off and increase the friction of thing that one does not want to be doing.

Al once told me, that he had imaginary good conversation with me in his head. He had the impression that we had many good conversations, when we only attended Homebrew websites together a couple of times and never had anything I would describe as a conversation.

I have the exact same tendency. I could be reading something, and I would imagine the back and forth with this person. The emotional payoff is of the similar quality than actual socialisation, if a bit weaker. I am also mentally aware that I am not having the conversation with this person.

You know what makes this perception hairwire? If I actually have any kind of interaction with this person. No matter how small.

That is why I am not really allowing myself to use emojis on Discord or limit them as much as possible on work's Slack. Why I do not use kudos on AO3 or anything resembling the only reaction in the IndieWeb - let this be a like/bookmark post or the use of the Open Heart Protocol.

I need to increase the friction on interactions like that.

It is how I can keep some kind of differentiation about which relationships are completely in my head and which ones have at least some basis.

What I have recently also realised, that the webmentions, as I was using them and as how other people were using them had the similar effect on me.

If I would send a wembention, than I could skimp on other interaction. And only after a while I would be like... 'Did I ever directly communicated with this person? Even though I feel like he have the relationship?'

Sure, I had some blogs related discussions, where we would have a back and forth, inspired with each other blogs. A couple of times that it had happened it was really nice. But I am sure I would be able to replicate this even without webmentions.

I am hoping that this will force me to be more social in a more substantial way. I don't mean now, that I will be have to be more thoughtful in the interactions. I am hoping that I will be more likely to send an email with 'I liked the article' or 'This was cute' or 'I wrote a response to it here, no need to read it.'

I sort of like the approach that Robert took, where they ask people to send him replies to be included on the page. No webmentions needed. No technology beside email needed either.

Because on the end, it is not about the technology, but about psychology/sociology/anthropology/... I think we should be judging the technology much more on how does it makes us feel and act. In what way does it help and hamper us?

I am feeling hopeful, and easier about it, which I take as a good sign. And even for this feeling, I think it would be worth it.