News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why social media design makes it hard to have constructiv... by mariodiana on Friday July 16, 2021 @09:48AM (#27856199)
I read that totally differently.

> We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who derail conversations and use emoji to convey emotions in text.

I mentally inserted an Oxford comma before the last "and." Thus:

People like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to:

  * delete inflammatory content
  * block users who derail conversations 
  * use emoji to convey emotions in text
Re:Why social media design makes it hard to have constructiv... by metalliqaz on Friday July 16, 2021 @12:55PM (#27858288)
me too. If anything, emojis seem to reduce emotional misunderstanding of intent
Re:Why social media design makes it hard to have constructiv... by readflaggedcomm on Friday July 16, 2021 @12:54PM (#27858276)
The author could have used a comma if she meant that...
Re:Why social media design makes it hard to have constructiv... by jjk166 on Friday July 16, 2021 @04:32PM (#27860882)
The lack of an "and" between "delete inflammatory content" and "block users" unambiguously makes it a list of three items. The oxford comma, while useful, is not necessary here.
Re:Why social media design makes it hard to have constructiv... by readflaggedcomm on Saturday July 17, 2021 @01:53AM (#27863795)
So you're saying the obvious interpretation of the text is impossible to render because you insert grouping breaks where you please? I reject that.
Re:Why social media design makes it hard to have constructiv... by jjk166 on Saturday July 17, 2021 @11:09AM (#27866308)
According to your "obvious" interpretation, the sentence is:

"We found that people like some features that are already present in social media, like the ability to delete inflammatory content, block users who do X."

Does that sound like a grammatically correct complete sentence?