But I'm not sure it is that simple. On one hand you want to empower users to curate their feed, have control over their posts, and shape the hubski community in the way they see fit, but on the other hand, this is a public site and I come here expecting to see public discussion on topics, not one which is arbitrarily shaped by the submitter's ideological basis. I still think that finding ways to marginalize trolls and other detractors from productive conversation is an important goal of mute. I'm not sure that a fractured discussion is automatically a bad solution, I think the bigger issue is one of "How easy is it to manipulate the fractured discussion?" I mean, if it is as easy as assembling a cabal of popular hubskites to mute users who express a particular viewpoint, this seems bad to me, but I don't see what stops the muted group from simply making posts of their own and resubmitting stories themselves. This can be frustrating if you're looking for opposing or controversial viewpoints, while on the other hand, it can be beneficial if the marginalized group are simply disruptive assholes. I think it is a balance that ought to be struck.