Conversation

After spending too much time on the internet, I have noticed a stigma around digression or--as it is known on some parts of the web--derailing and c-c-c-combobreakers. Whenever a thread in one of the groups that I chat in diverges too much from its original path some people follow the change in subject matter happily, but others remain pouting on the sidelines wanting to return to the original point even if it has already been the subject of hours of conversation even if the new topic incites insightful replies.

Most sites that come close to being as well known as Facebook make changes in slow, calculated manners to avoid angering their user base so much that there is any kind of mass exodus. Although a website ought to change with time to stay relevant (unless you're Craigslist), well-known sites cannot change rapidly without annoying or worse confusing their users. A change on Facebook as small as removing the reply button from wall posts might be water cooler talk. We see that these small changes shape what we get out of conversation (without the reply button I don't look up from the keyboard before sending so tend to edit less and post more). While I believe in the process of change through digression or progression or whatever, I want more influence over that process so I can effect good change rather than just change. I don't want to limit the conversation to discussing how the conversation has changed either. I don't want to shout c-c-c-combobreaker from the sidelines. People should have direct influence over changing content they see online so they can articulate not simply that a particular change isn't good, but also how and why change can be great.