Since I rarely use Facebook Messenger, only recently did I discover that Facebook had implemented read receipts for its messages (as well as “seen by” notifications for content on Facebook Groups). When I first started using my iPhone, I also found out that iMessage, by default, enables read receipts. Why are these features necessary?

The Facebook or iOS argument would likely proceed under the assumption that there exist certain scenarios in which knowing when a message has been read is useful (e.g. letting someone know you’re going to be late, changing the location of a meeting). Indeed, email read receipts have been around for awhile, and at times, receiving an acknowledgement that a message has been read may be useful. However, I would assume the large majority of Facebook or text messages are conversational in nature, with the expectation that some response will be received, so knowledge of when a message is read isn’t the primary goal. Thankfully, in both the email and iMessage situations, one can opt-out of read receipts. Facebook has no such option.

Jeff Hancock, a professor at Northwestern who studies technology-mediated communication and social interaction, coined the term “butler lie” to denote those lies that we tell to manage interactions. Just as a butler might announce that the master is not home to receive guests when he very well might be, individuals use butler lies to avoid or exit interactions. Consider the examples that Hancock provides in the aforementioned paper: “Sorry I gtg, I’m studying with a friend; Okay, back to work I go; Hey I just got your call, my phone wasn’t with me.” Research (and likely your own personal experience) demonstrates that these butler lies are not rare, with butler lies making up a few percent of all online (or text) communication. People expect to be lied to, but have a difficult time actually identifying butler lies.

I use Google Chat on a daily basis, and the way people manage their availability status is intriguing. My personal policy is probably closest to what the Gchat designers envisioned themselves: to stay “available” while signed-in, unless I happen to be in class (or some analogous situation in which I’m busy), in which case I revert to “busy.” Since I occasionally switch between multiple computers when using Gmail, the “invisible” option is detrimental; someone might chat me while invisible, and instead of getting that chat sent to my inbox as a “message delivered while offline,” there exists the possibility that I miss it entirely. Others I know adopt different policies: staying perpetually busy helps deter unwanted interaction and offers an excuse to not respond, staying perpetually invisible does the exact same and simultaneously gives absolutely no information to the other participant regarding your availability, entering into a busy state when already engaged in a conversation signals unavailability (and perhaps also the inability to multi-task). These alternative availability policies are effectively butler lies as well: by harnessing ambiguity, individuals maintain flexibility in presenting themselves to others. Gchat, like the instant messaging services before it, was smart to incorporate a flexible availability metaphor into the product.

If deception plays a key role in managing interactions, designers of interaction technologies are obligated to incorporate this understandings into their product. Facebook’s designers seem to have neglected this in designing a mandatory read-receipt messaging system. I get it, Facebook wants me to use their communication system like instant messaging, with quick read-reply cycles. Unfortunately, it will probably take much more than read receipts to change the perception of Facebook Messages as asynchronous communication. In fact, if this is the only goal of mandatory read receipts, why not notify the user (doing the reading) when such a read receipt has been sent? The lack of this, along with the silent roll-out of the feature, suggests that Facebook is aware of how such a feature would be perceived.