There's a difference between "mute" and "ignore". If I muted you, you wouldn't be able to reply to anything I've posted (including entire link posts). If I ignored you, I simply wouldn't see your posts. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't actually used either one of these functions yet.) I think that ignore is a very useful tool to have, while mute is rather harsh and unnecessary.
I don't have a problem with either of these, why should an abusive person be able to reply to my posts? Why should one person be only given the power to ignore, while another person still has the power to follow someone around and reply? If this is between me and another party, what is the harm? Nobody is deciding for me, and I can make decisions based on my own experiences on what I want to see, sounds like a win-win.There's a difference between "mute" and "ignore". If I muted you, you wouldn't be able to reply to anything I've posted (including entire link posts). If I ignored you, I simply wouldn't see your posts. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't actually used either one of these functions yet.)
While I agree with your argument, I think "mute" has too much of an opportunity to be abused. You are effectively censoring a viewpoint from everyone else when you mute. Let's say I post something controversial, and simply mute everyone who disagrees with me. Now, the conversation looks completely one-sided. Clearly if it's an abusive individual who just follows you around Hubski and calls you dumb whenever you post, it's a useful tool. I still think it would be better if you just ignored that person rather than muted them in this case, too, however.
Is the mute global or is it just limited to that one person? Say you muted me, does that mean someone like swedishbadgergirl wouldn't be able to see my posts anywhere on-site?