> Every time, I would respond with the Navy Seal Copypasta, broken into eight twitter sized parts. Eventually they banned me for this.
yeah, people like you should be banned
yeah, people like you should be banned
Certainly on HN that person would/should be banned right away (which is part of the reason HN is the best place on the internet).
But Twitter is a different animal. So are Reddit and 4Chan. Sarcastic copypasta is par for the course.
Looking from the outside, this is an accurate description of 99,99% of all messages ever written on twitter. Arguably, the copy pasted text can at least bring a bit of joy which other tweets also fail at.
Yes, there are far worse things. But let us hold ourselves to our own high standards and be proud.
Note that I'm not saying that I'm a fan of low-quality posts like this, just that I feel that the lion's share of Twitter is low-quality posts, so it seems odd to single out a copy-pasta meme as being unworthy while allowing... well, the rest of Twitter.
It sounds like you're saying that even if the messages were relevant, such as "you tagged the wrong account", that would be unsolicited?
A single burst of tweets is very solidly solicited when you tag someone, even if it was by mistake.
> Don't get emotionally invested in this.
What in the world do you mean by "emotionally invested"? That reads like a weird way of being unwarrantedly dismissive.
As for the response, it would be unsolicited by the fact the original tweeter did not ask/want a response from the Meme-ster. They tagged the wrong account.
Take this example:
John says to the person he thinks is Brad: I can't believe the weather today!
Emily says to John: What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals.... etc....
John's reaction to Emily: WTF who the hell is this? Why is she saying these things to me?
Now imagine this happens to be a common mistake that multiple make and Emily responds in this way every time...
That's an example of a reply that is "unsolicited" and "also irrelevant", by your criteria.
I'm not trying to defend that combo here. You said such a screed is "also irrelevant", right?
That means even if a reply wasn't irrelevant, even if it was a useful response, it would still be unsolicited. Right?
Is that what you intended to say? Am I misreading something?
If you send someone an invite to a discussion, they're invited, whether you meant to or not. At least long enough to send a single reply (which may be multiple tweets).
Whether their response is a polite "you tagged the wrong person" or some awful screed does not change whether a solicitation happened. Especially because tagging someone is not a request for any specific sort of reply.
Relatedly, if someone is eavesdropping in public and steps into a conversation to make the most wonderful helpful and loved comment in the world, doing that was still unsolicited.
Also tagging does not necessarily request a reply at all.
This is silly and will go in circles so I will finish by just saying.. What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? ....
And that's what twitter is, brief conversations.