*Online Participation Disclaimer

CAVEATS

The following disclaimer applies to participation in discourse as it relates to my individual experience as a human being in a global online community and the collective communication occurring therein. This disclaimer is intended to acknowledge the complexities, challenges and sometimes human incompatibility with discourse occurring at potentially global scale. Human beings are funky little creatures and we can make things more complicated and sometimes, more harmful than we originally set out to do because the vast majority of people are not formally trained communicators at a level beyond primary education. (See also: reading comprehension and general literacy)

This disclaimer is here to acknowledge that sometimes we are not our most clear and erudite selves when trying to communicate online and the absence of context, body language and tonal signals that would exist in face to face interaction can create confusion, misunderstandings and miscommunication. That being said, this specific disclaimer is not and never will be cover for trolling or espousing harmful rhetoric including any of the -isms or -phobias. This disclaimer is null and void if it has been used to defend against racist, sexist, misogynist, classist, elitist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic or otherwise excremental behavior. Hold accountable those who try to use it as such.

INTRODUCTION

Opinions, everyone has them. Increasingly, we are sharing them online and because the internet is a global population, it’s overwhelming to encounter so many opinions, especially as they are curated and offered for viewing by algorithmic decisions beyond our sight.

Sometimes we engage casually and sometimes we engage with intentionality and rigor and it’s not always obvious at first glance which may be the case.

In light of those realities and the degree to which we struggle to develop the coping mechanisms to process when online discourse is subjective opinion rather than an exchange entered into with the precision of a thesis defense, court case or a peer-reviewed scientific experiment, we need to calibrate our expectations of and reactions to online discourse.

DISCLAIMERS

1. THOUGHTS IN PROGRESS
   1. Given that I am, most likely, casually participating in a specific instance of discourse and not attending to it with the fervor of either a curse or an obsession, I will, in all likelihood, not be prepared to deliver a refined, clear, comprehensive and final recounting of any and all evidence, ideas and opinions I may have as it relates to the topic. The depth of my engagement can range from casual to rigorous as prompted by the subject matter, circumstances and possibly(1), how hungry or tired I am at the time of engagement.
   2. I am also not able to commit that I have a final or complete opinion as my thoughts and perspectives change as I reconcile new information. I may have an opinion today that will be different later as I learn and evolve in my thinking. I reserve the right to change my mind, develop more nuanced or complex opinions and even not have a clear cut, easily communicated perspective.
   3. Sentience is not an obligation to have an opinion on all things at all times or to share opinions that are held. There are myriad subjects in which I do not feel sufficiently educated or informed to hold an opinion. There are also probably even more subjects that I simply do not have the capacity or interest to acquire the information necessary to form an opinion. People do not have to care about everything at all times to the level of having a fully formed opinion. People are not capable of caring about all things at all times at that level.
   4. The omission of an explicitly stated opinion is not proof of either the existence or nonexistence of an opinion of any nature. It is Schrodinger's opinion. Until I state it, you cannot accurately assert what my opinion is.
      1. Example: “You’ve never said that it would be a bad idea to blow up the moon so you must think it’s a good idea.” You don’t know what I think about lunar demolition. I have questions to be answered before I can offer a working opinion.
   5. If I am recounting an event, unless explicitly stated, I have likely not included an exhaustive accounting of every single detail of the event as that is almost impossible to achieve in a format that is appropriate for most online communities. I have endeavored to include all of the salient details for the specific thing I’m describing but there may be additional events that are related. The omission of the details of those additional events is not proof of either the existence or non-existence of additional events or actions.
      1. Example: “I loaded my groceries in my car and then returned home from the grocery store” does not equal “I loaded the groceries into my car and left the cart in the middle of the lot because I hate store employees and I don’t care about returning it to the cart return.” I haven’t stated whether I did or didn’t return the cart because I probably didn’t feel it was necessary information. You do not have sufficient information to ascertain whether or not I returned the cart.
         
2. PARTICIPATION AS OPINION
   1. Barring the instances (and sometimes even in these instances) where
      - I am acting in an official capacity or as an authorized representative
      - I may be considered a person with relevant domain expertise or sufficient relevant direct experience to comment authoritatively
      - I am the original source for the subject material in question
      - I use language specifically indicating I am asserting something as a matter of fact (2).
      
      Any comment or post I author is only my opinion even if I do not preface every single sentence with a variation of the phrase or language in equal meaning to the following:
      - “I think” 
      - “In my opinion”
      
      As I am an individual and barring circumstances outlined above, anything I say can only ever be my opinion as there is no higher authority that has miraculously vested me with the power of being the arbiter of final judgment on the topic in question nor am I participating with the intent or goal of being the final word on a given topic.
      
      Therefore, it is neither necessary nor your obligation to argue with me that what I’ve posted is just my opinion. I am aware. That is, in fact, the actual classification of the vast majority of the content people contribute online.
      
      It naturally follows that if I am describing something based in my lived experience, I can only do so within the scope of my own lived experience as that's the one I'm, well, experiencing. So you can tell me that's just my experience, and you would be correct, but you would also be stating the obvious.
      
   2. If you choose to view my opinion as an assertion of fact, that’s your choice. I can’t evaluate the quality of that choice, but it is nonetheless yours.
      
   3. In the event I do assert something as fact and I haven’t provided sources (3), you certainly have the freedom to request them. However, I cannot guarantee that I will: 
      - See your request
      - Have the capacity to respond to your request 
      - Have the interest in responding to your request
      
      Such is the nature of asking for labor on behalf of strangers on the internet.
      
   4. It is also important to consider the form of my contribution. Replies, social media posts, blog posts, etc. Each comes with an average associated amount of preparation and refinement of the content contained within. Are you treating my social media reply that was likely crafted and posted from my phone while I was eating cheese fries as if it has undergone the same amount of preparation as a TED Talk?
      
3. SCOPE OF APPLICATION
   1. In the event I share my opinion on a subject, unless otherwise explicitly stated, my opinion is only applied to that specific subject and cannot and should not be construed as extending to peripheral subjects or people. 
      1. Example:  “<name of book> was off-putting. I didn’t like <aspect of book>” is not the same, nor does it equal: “<name of book> was off-putting, therefore anyone who likes it is off-putting.” 
         
      2. Example: “<Name of movie> was really messed up. I’m not sure how anyone can like that” does not automatically equal “<Name of movie> was really messed up. Nobody should like it and if they do, they are messed up.” It means, I cannot, currently, personally imagine a reason to like it. A lack of imagination (or having not yet taken the time to ponder something in depth) on my part does not necessarily constitute grounds for offense on yours.
         1. Why even say something like “I’m not sure how anyone can like that”? Because human beings communicate in a wide variety of imperfect ways including hyperbole. It’s a way of processing and communicating a current level of understanding about a given thing.
            
   2. If you do interpret my language to be a direct judgment of you despite the clause above, additional context may help. I do not know you exist. You specifically. I am probably not aware you exist. I have no motive, incentive or other reason to judge you specifically.
      
4. FEELINGS RESPONSIBILITY
   1. In all communication, decent people should endeavor to be kind, thoughtful and inclusive. As someone who aspires to be a consistently decent person, I do my best to do this in my interactions. However, if you find yourself feeling strongly in some way in response to my words, I request the same courtesy I will extend to you as follows: Managing my feelings is my responsibility and therefore I am responsible for taking a beat to process why I feel the way I do after encountering this perspective rather than immediately internalizing it and taking it personally. Perhaps, this content is not intended for me.
      
   2. It is neither reasonable, nor feasible, for all language at all times in all places to accommodate every single individual’s unique context and perspective through which they experience the world. I do my best, but no one can guarantee comprehensive accommodation at all times in all things.
      
   3. It is entirely possible, probably likely, and not automatically wrong, for people to engage with subjects at different levels of seriousness (4). You may be coming into the space with a level of seriousness and a personal experience I simply don’t match. That doesn’t automatically imbue either one of us with the authority to police the other’s contributions.
      
   4. Even if we share similar personal experiences, we are not obligated to respond or feel similarly because of those experiences.
      1. Example: We have both experienced a negative traumatic event of a similar nature. Perhaps I am coping with humor and sarcasm. Perhaps you are experiencing a more solemn and angry mood. Neither of us is wrong. Nor is it either of our responsibility to change the way we are processing our respective experiences to make the other more comfortable.
         
5. SOME THINGS FOR SOME PEOPLE
   1. While inclusivity is a core component to a healthy and worthwhile community, that does not mean that everything is for everyone. When we encounter things not actually made for us, our response to that reality is our own to manage.
      
   2. Some speech is specific to and coded for the active participants of a particular community that may have established norms and protocols. If you are previously or usually external to the community, it is your responsibility to evaluate if you are properly understanding content in the appropriate context or if you might be missing relevant history or alternative language usage or meanings. It’s inappropriate for tourists to tell locals how they should be living.
      
   3. If I say something that is not applicable to you or your experience, perhaps you simply aren't the audience for it.
      1. Example: "You described <experience> that happened to you but that's never happened to me." (Or the inverse) Okay. And?
         
6. SPHERES OF RELEVANCE
   1. When weighing the relevance and importance of any specific thing I’ve contributed to the discourse, please first evaluate whether I am even relevant to you. 
      - Am I within your sphere of known and personal acquaintances? 
      - Am I a participant in a community you also participate in? 
      - Am I someone who simply shares with you an affinity for or engagement with a specific topic? 
      - Am I someone you only have vague awareness of and may only ever encounter occasionally, if not rarely, in your life? 
      - Am I someone completely irrelevant to you and your life? 
1. Assign the appropriate weight to my contributions in alignment with the weight of the sphere of relevance I most likely belong to and proceed accordingly.
   
7. OPINION AND OPTIONAL BOTH START WITH OP
   1. It is most unlikely that you are engaging with my activity in any fashion other than by your own free will. I have no control over any algorithms, digital deities or persons who may cause my online activity to appear before you on a platform that you have chosen to use. However, you are most welcome without any judgment and with all good will on my part, to simply ignore me. You are not required to consider or engage with anything I contribute.
      
   2. If you find yourself in the position of having a response to what I’ve said, you are under no obligation to share it. You can if you want to (5). However, I am under no obligation to provide you with a forum for your response nor am I obligated to respond to your response. Engagement is not mandated.
      
8. SCALE
   1. Human beings went from postcards to posting online in an extraordinarily compressed amount of time. We are not evolved in our capacities yet to physiologically manage the sheer volume of exposure we now have to opinions and perspectives from people.
      
   2. While the scope and reach of the internet is one of the most profound things to have ever happened to a sentient species, that does not mean it’s automatically easy for us to each navigate.
      
   3. With great scale, we each require small moments of grace when we do our best to explain ourselves clearly and without harm.
      
9. AMENDMENTS AND UPDATES
   This policy is a work in progress, just like its human author and will be updated and amended as appropriate and when I remember that it exists.

CONCLUSION

I’m doing my best. I think most of us are. Online communication, while decades old, is in such active and constant evolution and growth that it’s not as simple as it would seem on its surface. Nothing is worth your mental health. Practice good distance from materials and interactions based on what’s best for you. Where possible and merited, extend to others the same benefit of the doubt you would like to receive when you engage online.

1.  If the online discourse is a recurring debate, irritation may also be a factor.
2.  Fact, as defined by the Cambridge dictionary: “something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information”
3.  Note: Not providing sources you, personally, accept as valid, is not the same as not providing sources at all.
4.  Obviously, there are some subjects that should be broached with appropriate degrees of sincerity and respect but it is impossible to make a definitive list of such as it is also subjective and such a list eschews the possibility that satire, sarcasm or other less “serious” modes of communication may, indeed, be appropriate as a means of illustrating a higher point.
5.  I am not required to provide you with a platform to reply to me. I may be speaking in a space where comments are allowed but where and when I have moderation tools available to me, I’m well within my rights to use them to curate my discussion as I see fit.

Feel free to link to the *OPD as needed.