I can't speak for anyone but me, but I see a huge part of "internet culture" as revolving around "winning" arguments and I think that using a faceless interface to get the thrills of confrontation and victory are pretty sad. Pretty fucking sad. But, if people on hubski want to do that, cool. But I sure as hell appreciate the ability to mute someone or to ignore them. Not "filter". Ignore. I realize that I am probably in the minority, but I hope that the mute feature will stay the same. I don't generally get into arguments with people on hubski and I don't really care to. However, there are a growing number of voices I don't care to hear. They might be ok, but as in real life I'd like the discretion to make that decision on my own time. Edit: Aw shucks, one less follower.It allows people to 'win' arguments by replying to the person and then muting them so they cannot reply back
As it is, I'm off to record music. Huzzah!I realize that I am probably in the minority, but I hope that the mute feature will stay the same.
-I don't think you are in the minority. But I do think some interesting ideas have emerged from this thread that we will consider moving forward. The "shades of ignore" concept that ButterflyEffect mentioned, as well as your Thunderdome idea are both up there. In fact, I found myself having to excuse myself from the site for a bit in lieu of taking the Thunderdome approach.
I find myself agreeing with you. I think mute should stick around because just as anyone is entitled to saying whatever they want to whoever they want, people are just as entitled to not wanting to have to hear what you want to say. Edit: I don't know why I said "I find myself agreeing with you." That's a weird way of saying that. Whatever, haha.
It's a bit of a strawman to imply that's the issue people are having with the mute feature. It isn't. I think all of us would agree that if you don't want people to be a part of your experience, then you can do so. but actively disallowing them from responding to a comment of yours is not simply muting. Hubski could simply hide it from you and let everyone else see it so the conversation can continue and you don't have to have them in your face. That is the point of contention, not whether or not someone should be allowed to mute, but whether or not mute should prevent someone from having their opinion heard by anyone.
Because you're a proper young gent when you feel like it, that's why! But yes, that is a nice way of rephrasing my feelings on the matter. If we have tools for social interaction online similar to the tools we use to interact in real life, perhaps we may be civil to each other online, as we are in real life, no?Edit: I don't know why I said "I find myself agreeing with you." That's a weird way of saying that. Whatever, haha.
Whoa wait a minute. After seeing both of yours, and kbs comments, I had an idea. What if we had both. What if we had mute, but also an "ignore comments" feature? That way if I'm leaning more towards indifference I could just not see their comment, but if I'm in a situation with say, a certain someone, I don't want them commenting on my stuff at all and then bam. Both worlds. Though I guess the only way to avoid people complaining is to eliminate mute, since going through a 3rd party to initially communicate is rarely going to be the first thing that comes to a persons mind for resolving the issue.
I don't know how hard "shades of ignore/mute" would be to implement, but it might be something to play around with. Or what if we just had a #thunderdome where people could duke it out and not have their shit bleed all over the site?
wait I had an even better idea we just get rid of commenting altogether
You have every right to completely shut someone out of your experience on Hubski, if you think those are the arguments people like me are making, you're misunderstanding us. You shouldn't have the right to disallow others to join in a conversation, which is the aspect of the mute functionality that's being called into question.