I do not use and absolutely despise the mute button. If you can already filter people you dislike, and hide their comments, what then is the point of the mute button other than to silence people you dislike? What about power users that are very popular? Should they be allowed to dictate who we hear from or not on their posts? It's idiotic. Not only can people now inundate themselves with hugbox opinions that subscribe to their echo chamber, but they can curate their posts so only their confidantes and yes-men will post in response. Where's the discussion?
Because they're allowed as much a say in the discussion as anyone else. It's up to each person whether or not they agree with their opinions, and I have no right to keep them from being heard. That's my point, that people are allowed to form their own opinions, and muting someone simply because you disagree with that opinion is just pathetic. Again, if people can block and filter on their own, without any type of alteration to other users' experiences, then why is there any need at all for the mute button?
No. They are only guaranteed a say in discussions that they initiate (by posting them). That's the way it works around here. I can start a discussion, and I can exclude you if I like. Tough shit for you.
If you've pissed off someone and they mute you, buck up and roll with it. Or ask to be un-muted (politely, I'd suggest). But you do not have a right to comment wherever you want around here.Because they're allowed as much a say in the discussion as anyone else.
As much as it might hurt to be quietly muted by people you once thought were your friends, it is true, nobody is guaranteed a say on any post that isn't their own. I'm the biggest advocate of "freeze peach" as there is, but even I can recognize that this is how Hubski works, and it isn't that bad, especially if we're comparing it with the more draconian and top-down version of reddit moderation. Say what you want, and if you can't say it in a reply to someone, then say it on your own. If it's that important, and you're civil, I take an optimistic view that you'll still find an audience for your opinions. And if not, well, the world's going to hell in a handbasket anyways, so what?
I think the issue here arises because while they might surround themselves with yesmen to their best ability, some of the other people who respond to threads they post may not be so insular in their associations or in their thinking. I've certainly had conversations that were more engaging than the main posts they were part of. A crappy OP can be a great thread.
Yeah, I get that. But there are clubs and bars in the city that you can't get into and I'm sure they're filled with fascinating conversation. That doesn't mean you'll get to be a part of it. That's just a part of life. Here's what I see - zeroFail isn't complaining that he can only get hugbox opinions, that he is stuck in an echo chamber, that he is confined to yes men. He's complaining that other people have the option and to ignore him and his opinion, to keep him out of their conversations. He's arguing that a single user shouldn't be allowed to dictate who others hear from, while dictating who others hear from. That's the issue.
It's not just him, though. Say we're in a thread on the #microbiology tag because we all totally love microbiology. zeroFail has just created a thread about microscopic spores. You actually know more about microscopic spores than anyone else on the site. You're actually an expert on the specific type of spore we're discussing and someone's made a grievous error that all the rest of us are happily going along with. Unfortunately zeroFail disagrees with your position on Israel and has muted you, so you can't contribute to the thread. Do you miss out? Yeah, sure, a little. You don't get to fulfill that impulse to share relevant knowledge that you possess. By and large, though, the subscribers of #microbiology miss out. Instead of having some new factual information now they're spreading some nonsense they read on Hubski around because of your disagreement with zeroFail on a completely unrelated topic. Not such a big deal when it's only a handful of people blocking one another. If it gets out of hand, though, you can see how the quality of conversation might suffer.
The problem is that we're dealing with the hypotheticals of a future site and for any answer I give you on a hypothetical it's infinitely possible for you to come back with, "yeah, but what if..." that doesn't quite fit the rule. If you're not sure how something fits into the culture, observe the culture more. Try to figure out why people do what they do and don't worry too much about defining actions for every possible future. Do what you feel is right and if you have a community that agrees, they can follow with you. I was trying to avoid saying it but, and damnit kleinbl00, lurk moar.
Well, we'd have to look at the established pattern of what we've already seen. I don't know what that is because while I've apparently had an account for two years I haven't been using it nearly that long. Has there been an issue so far at all with things like block lists or groups fragmenting?
See, if this site had user-made forums, or personal blogs, then I'd be there with you. If it's your space, then you're allowed to say who comments on it. I might disagree with blocking, but it's your life. But when you're a user posting political discourse or general discussion, what do you gain from keeping me from the conversation? Most posts on Hubski are links to off site articles. Why should they be allowed to keep my comments from being seen? They've essentially made the decision for every user on the site that I have nothing worthwhile to say, which is absolutely against what Hubski is about in the first place, namely self moderation. The point is that everyone is allowed to filter who they want, but they don't have a chance to even decide filtering me is worthwhile because someone else already said, "I disagree with you. You don't deserve to make a point." I mean, hell, I wouldn't be able to have this discussion with you right now if the OP decided to mute me. How could anyone find this feature to be in any way fair in the spirit of Hubski?
You've been here a little over a month, how are you the authority on what Hubski stands for? Read Kb's epic thread in this post. It brought tears of laughter to my eyes but only because it's such a keen distillation of the truth about muting, blocking and the interactions with new users. Welcome to Hubski all the same. A great deal of thought and debate has been put into the way the site functions and the moderation tools which isn't at all evident when you haven't been here for very long.
Yep. Also, nothing is stopping you from editorializing in the post and adding to the value of the link. If someone else had you muted but your commentary is robust and well thought out, I might just follow you and eventually your posts will win the day.
Hoorah!
The feature is fair to the spirit of Hubski, because it was made by the people who made Hubski. You can repost the article here just like you can "repost" an article on twitter, because the core of this site is separate user groups and not a unified front page.