That's interesting.

On one hand internet companies are pushing for policing/real identities/censoring.

Because if you're hurt by a comment on a social media, you wont stay here, you wont participate, and you wont see the sweet sweet ads. So muting user only serve crass commercialism.

On the other hand, nobody has to put on with others bullshit, if he does not want to. Compare it to real life. If your friend/family/colleague become utterly annoying and/or insufferable you'll cut them out of your life.

I like how mk handled the censure as a per user basis.

Hubski does not decide which user to mute or ban because of bullying, or divergent opinion, anyone decide for himself.

It's very visceral and hurtful. first time I saw I was muted I was pissed. You are rejected, your opinion is seen as irrelevant or hurtful, and the dude muting you is surely a dumbass.

But hey, I get to mute anyone I want, so I'm not left powerless either. And THAT is an awesome feeling. It's like you can Block Obama or Apple on twitter if you want to. Useless, but hey, they cannot annoy you with their propaganda now!

In the end I think it's very intelligent way to handle social media interaction: anyone is in charge of the censure he want to apply. Anything giving power to end user is good in my book.