This would be "ignore." This would be literally no site functionality on Hubski. Mute doesn't censor. Mute prevents you from saying anything in the first place. Say whatever you want on the street; I'm not required to suffer it in my own house. Because it's divisive, off-topic, inflammatory, antagonistic, obscene, or otherwise offensive. Next? Sure. But the blanket of words you choose to spread out are on my lawn. I can't do shit about your words. But I can sure as hell keep you off my lawn. Blogger, Myspace, Facebook, Tumblr, Wordpress and pretty much everything but 4chan, Reddit, Digg and Slashdot work like this. And you are posting it with my tacit approval because it's my post. If it were on some other post owned by some other person, I'd have no ability to do anything about it. It's their lawn, not mine. And that's the metaphor to wrap your head around: Hubski exists to follow users, not subjects. In other words, you aren't going to a party at 2nd and Blanchard, you're going to a party at Run's House. If you say something offensive to Run, he's well within his rights to show you the door - your offensive comment hangs in the air; everyone heard it. Run, meanwhile, doesn't have to suffer you at his parties anymore. You can look in through the windows, but you can't mix it up. It's been that way as long as I've been here, and I shall be here so long as it continues to be so. Then maybe you should find another site to play on. Because on here, it does. By doing so, they're making their comments with my permission. "You've had too much to drink. Go home." Because the site deliberately, tacitly gives me permission to do so. If it didn't, I wouldn't participate. I think Hubski owns everything any of us writes, but I'm not a lawyer. I know that there's built-in site functionality whose explicit purpose is to give me moderation power over who can and can't post on my content, and I find it advantageous to use it. Yeah, you didn't try very hard. Give "permit" a shot and see how much better the analogy works.Blocking anyone's content so you can't see it is fine.
Blocking anyone's content so others can't see it is not.
With your ideal muting function, you've got to rationalize that you're taking discussional surrogacy over people who view your posts. You're making a decision for them. Why would you do that?
But the discussions people can have on your posts are entirely comprised, owned, and made by contributors. This comment is "my content". Not yours.
This is mine; the post and your comments are yours.
Being a post originator shouldn't let you silence contributors from other contributors.
By doing so, you're saying their content is yours.
"I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!"
So two things really. Why do you think you can make content-viewing decisions for people who view your posts?
And do you think you own the comments from contributors when they write on your posts?
There's got to be a better word than "own" by the way.
This is the hinge of your argument: that you own the ground people comment on when they choose to write on your posts. But thank fucking Jesus there's a choice. So, at the risk of ruining your dinner party, I'm going to get the hell out myself. Because you're big on respect, I'll say you've changed my opinion. Not begrudgingly, but in the way you seem to usually do. Where you leave whoever you're talking to feeling like they've talked to a real asshole, but they can't say anything about it because you get your point across. Keep your lawn shit free...the blanket of words you choose to spread out are on my lawn.
Yes. Precisely. As is entirely your right. I certainly find that solution preferable to the drive to change the rules. That uncomfortable feeling you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance. It's caused by holding conflicting ideas concurrently as they fight for primacy in your cortex. One idea will win out eventually; for most people, the old idea is at the top of the hill and generally wins out. Either way, it's an experience that does cause an experience of physical pain in some people. Here's a great reference. For what it's worth, I'd like to point out that you called me an asshole and you're still unmuted. Which I might point out (so long as I'm giving you a headache anyway) could possibly indicate that the reasons and motivations for muting aren't as simple or as arbitrary as you think.This is the hinge of your argument: that you own the ground people comment on when they choose to write on your posts.
But thank fucking Jesus there's a choice. So, at the risk of ruining your dinner party, I'm going to get the hell out myself.
ecause you're big on respect, I'll say you've changed my opinion. Not begrudgingly, but in the way you seem to usually do. Where you leave whoever you're talking to feeling like they've talked to a real asshole, but they can't say anything about it because you get your point across.
Understanding the analogy doesn't change that muting someone is exclusionary - whether good or bad. As such, it makes new users uncomfortable rustling established users' jimmies. That might be how the site's constructed, how it's going to be, and how you like it, but it makes the community harder to approach. It's not cognitive dissonance. My opinions weren't idealized so there wasn't a hill to be king of. You just have an abrasive way of talking about things that's not the most helpful. This time it was though. It was a good talk, klein. Maybe we'll have more.