a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  3179 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: The limitations of the moderation system

The reason I added that last part as a "possibility" was that I wanted a discussion about it and not to have it as part of the actual idea. I think you're right about that, it would end up being vindictive.

    Also, what do you mean by "people using the mute feature for censorship?" It's kind of an individual decision, I'm pretty sure that there haven't been (or at least I haven't seen) instances of people using the mute feature because they don't agree with people's point of view; educated discussion is part of the reason I keep coming back to hubski. I like having my ideas challenged.

Every time in Hubski's past that we've discussed the mute feature, instances come out of the cracks of the feature being used for censorship and the people being censored are reluctant to come forward about it. A more recent example was this:

I made a post and as you can see it has no comments on it. Grendel PM'd me saying that he thought it was ironic that he wished to make a reasonable disagreement with me about censorship yet the poster had muted him, so he couldn't. The title of the post was actually Censorship, and it was in defense of no censorship at all. I don't really know what his view is as a result, and I wish I did. I like hearing opposing viewpoints, it helps me understand others, develop my own points, and having them public helps others hear opposing viewpoints and prevent sounding chambers (cough reddit cough). Grendel is pretty clearly not a troll, so this is clear censorship of his ideas.

Maybe it makes more sense to also make a mute something that prevents only direct commenting. I know that shout-outs are a way to bypass a mute but how do you know who to shout-out if someone is being censored? I think that only direct comments to someone should be considered something that can be muted. Two layers deep seems a bit excessive. One layer deep (direct comments to your post or your comments) prevents harassment just fine. Anything 2 layers deep would by necessity be trying to prevent someone's views from entering the discussion entirely. A troll that posts on someone else's comment can easily be muted by that person or filtered by others, because at that point he isn't harassing the original person but the person below, which that person would WANT to know that someone is out there like that and he needs to mute them.





tla  ·  3179 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Nothing prevented him from giving that view in that private message. He chose not to for whatever reason. He wasn't censored, he just could not use OP's post as a platform for what was a derailment of that topic. Op isn't obliged to listen to him, or host him.

user-inactivated  ·  3179 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Is it really free speech if you are whispering it behind closed doors?

What happens when someone else views the same thread and wants to see an opposing viewpoint to mine? What if they are never exposed to the opposing viewpoint in their lives, ever? They can't read our private messages, and this builds a closed public discussion on a narrow set of viewpoints.

That policy creates the public image of a discussion that is controlled to be exactly one viewpoint, and all the real discourse is in private.

That is practically the definition of a sounding chamber. Lock your subversive thoughts up in private.

tla  ·  3179 days ago  ·  link  ·  

There is not and can not be a dichotomy of free speech or censorship.

If someone wants to see more of what Grendel wants to say, they click on his name.

There they can currently see him posting a video about feminists deserving to be whipped, and decide if they still want to see his idea of "reasonable disagreement". If they do, they can follow and/or mail him. OP muting him doesn't prevent this.

A user who actually wants to hear from Grendel and is capable enough to find hubski isn't too stupid to figure this out.

user-inactivated  ·  3179 days ago  ·  link  ·  

How can you click on the name of someone you don't know exists? You only currently know about him because I told you about him in this context. If you visited the original thread, you would not have known he existed, and there would have been no name to click on.

You seem to be blinded by the specific example of Grendel, let's take it to an abstract.

When republicans visit a democratic convention or vice versa, imagine if they were just blocked from entering the building (which they are, usually you have to be a registered democrat/republican to go to those things). This creates a sounding chamber for all democrats to think democratly and all republicans to think republicanly.

Now imagine if you didn't know the other party existed. Let's take the Mendelssohn party for example. It comes around, gets blocked at the door from all political debates, and never reaches public knowledge that the party even exists or what its ideals are. I, the average person, can't just go to the Mendelssohn party's homepage if I don't know that the Mendelssohn party exists.

tla  ·  3179 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Trust me when I say you didn't introduce me to Grendel. There are plenty of his thoughts hosted by Hubski.

Your political party example confuses me. Political parties and politicians do not exist in a void. Mainstream media isn't in a void. People browsing the internet aren't in a void.

People setting boundaries around their participation in the few places where there are tools to do so, is not going to create an echo chamber as dramatic as the one you are imagining.

Nor is excluding someone from hijacking your platform.