Virtual communication isn't "less human."

If you were in a meeting with someone… would you pull out your phone and have ChatGPT speak for you?

Of course not.

It'd feel cold. Dismissive. Maybe even disrespectful.

But virtually? We do this constantly... with automated replies, generic messages, or feedback that's efficient but tone-deaf.

That's one of the most fascinating ideas from Andrew Brodsky's book Ping.

We've all become virtual communicators — whether we work in the office or not. But many of us have stopped thinking about the other person's experience. Because once you remove facial expression, voice, body language… you also remove a lot of the social accountability that comes with it.

Example Brodsky shared:
Someone sends a detailed strategy doc they've worked on for a week. You reply: "Got it."
In your head, that means "Thanks. Will review it later."
To them, it might read: "Not worth my time."

That's not just a tone issue. That's a gap in interpretation, and it happens constantly in virtual settings.

So how do we fix it?

It's not more meetings. Or better tools.
It's clarity. Intention. And explicit norms.

A few shifts I'm trying to make:
- Be explicit about urgency ("No rush" actually reduces stress)
- Match my message to the channel (Teams ≠ email)
- Establish team norms upfront (cameras, response times, feedback style)
- Add warmth when you don't have to

Virtual communication isn't "less human."
But it requires more intention to feel human.