Vision:
Hubski has millions of users - they join en mass from facebook, because they are hipsters and hiding from mainstream people - home feed and tags are flooded with pictures of dead cats and natzism.
I don't want to spend my life blocking a million users, but I trust b_b user or whatever, they have some block lists I can subscribe to
>> "Nemesis List" - List of usernames I can see
>> "People with shocking spelling/ Grammar List" - has 105 mystery users
>> "Natzis/ Racist List" - unspecified number of users
I subscribe to them all, and sit back, relax; and have an ever updating democratic filter I don't need to update.
And actually I set up one list, since I know that my work can easily impact more users than just myself This way people can join hubski, be themselves, you can easily filter users within your communities/circles It's true that it could lead to circle-jerking common ideologies, but people should be free to do what they want
I'm not a fan of this idea. The principle of hubski (and correct me if I'm wrong, here) is that you yourself are supposed to be your own moderator. Handing this responsibility off to somebody else seems contradictory. I'm also unhappy about how it would marginalize whole groups of people who aren't liked by the more "popular" users. Yes, tradition is a good thing, but stagnation is what kills communities! I can easily envision these list leading to stifling of dissent. And finally - and this might be unpopular - I live in constant fear of building myself an echo chamber. I don't want to talk to people who share all my views and agree to me and all. I need people I can actually have a debate with. The inevitable fallout of internet debate seems to be stepped-on toes. And I would rather prefer stepping on consecutive people's toes and getting them to filter me or whatever than pissing off one influential person and pretty much having to create a new account. If you mute someone, you better be damn sure they deserve it. As for your scenario, I would hope hubski's mechanics are robust enough to handle such a situation without having to resort to mass muting.
Thanks for responding and leaving an eloquent rebuttal ~ I can see your point, and though I'd like the option anyway, will continue enjoying hubski's awesomeness while it lasts; and if it ever disappears.. We can start our own hubski ... With... Additional stuff.... Yeah.. Echo chambers can be fun for meeting like minded people, learning about the subject, but living in one isn't the best.. No opinion should be so fragile that it needs constant justification and support.. Also #edit # a prominent user for one person is a bland user for another, it's optional sharing of moderation - there is no marginalizing, each user would still be in control, still be moderating and could switch and change and test their filtering .. In my opinion..
<3 I sure hope not! I'm usually pretty ready to admit when I'm wrong, but that doesn't happen very often - so maybe I'm actually not and just tell myself I am. Then again I usually don't have the time to lead elaborate discussions. I actually made someone cry the other day when were talking about sustainability. I felt pretty fucking terrible, and the worst part is I was just playing devil's advocate! Also you're wrong. :P
Here's the perspective of someone who loves playing devil's advocate: 1. I will play devil's advocate if someone mischaracterizes the opposition's arguments. To me, it is intellectually dishonest and poor form to argue against a shitty caricature or strawman of whatever it is you disagree with. It is not fair to the other side, who are not there to defend themselves from terribly constructed arguments lobbied at them. 2. Sometimes, I'll mentally construct arguments in the same way mathematicians formulate proofs. I'll select a bunch of axioms/postulates/assumptions/etcs and go, "Well, I have collected a bunch of axioms/postulates/assumptions/etcs. Let's see what comes out of it." And I'll construct an argument that's hopefully logically consistent. But is my argument truly logically consistent or do I merely believe and wish it were so? Eventually, I'll need input from other people to proofread the argument, so to speak. So what does playing devil's advocate have to do with this? Well, the assumptions I've chosen are not necessarily ones that I personally believe in. I treat the whole thing as a form of mental exercise to keep the mind sharp. And if those assumptions are ones that I disagree in and, in fact, believe in the opposite of, that runs into devil's advocate territory. 3. Playing devil's advocate of the opposition allows you to find weaknesses and holes in their argument, and, in general, "feel the rhythm" of the argument. What are its strengths? What are its weaknesses? If done right, playing devil's advocate also means finding counterarguments to the devil's advocate. And what do you know, the counterarguments of a devil's advocate are the counterarguments of your couterarguments ie your arguments. 4. I use playing devil's advocate as a measurement of how much I grasp the opposition's arguments. The shittier my devil's advocate is, the shittier my grasp of the opposition's argument is, which casts doubt on how strong my actual arguments are. How can I be so sure of my arguments if my grasp of the opposition's argument is weak and flimsy? Because if my grasp of the opposition's argument is weak and flimsy, then what's more likely is that I haven't truly thought deeply of an issue rather than me being far smarter and better as a person than them. "They only believe in X because they're assholes" is never a good sign.
In discovering where one stands on an issue, it is a good idea to thoroughly explore both sides, even the one that doesn't have your sympathy at the moment. Your reasons seem like good reasons. Sometimes I suppose it's a good idea to look for the DA arguments before someone moves ahead with a decision -- especially if they honestly say, "Let's examine all the arguments in this case." I concede. I'll give the devil's arguers their due.
Should I comment on that here or in the original thread?
Okay, so I'm not a big fan of the orginal linked article, at all. It's needlessly combative in my eyes and seems to be an outlet for the author's frustrations with people asking their opinion on stuff, because they are the expert on such stuff (in this case feminism). The examples mentioned in the article are people who are merely pretending to play devil's advocate to mask their opinions. So yeah, those people suck and should ask themselves why they feel the need to hide their own opinions. I mean, I don't deny I'm priviliged. My parents were immigrants to this country, but my own life has never been anything but pleasant. I usually stay the fuck away from anything to do with racism and feminism, because to me those are "solved" problems in that I'm pretty convinced I know what's wrong and needs to be changed (don't be racist, don't discriminate women - it's not hard). I don't really feel the need to wade into the shitfest those issues have become (or always been?). Not to mention that that stuff tends to be very... americanized? I have the feeling we handle that stuff completely different in europe, but that might just be online/IRL-dissonance. I notice you put the "play" in quotes. I take it you don't like how it makes discussion into a game that one tries to "win"? That's a fair argument. I personally like discussing for sport, but I take care to only involve people I know enjoy it as well (or those I want to piss off if I'm feeling uncharitable). I've learned over time that the vast majority of people don't want to discuss their views. I think that's pretty appalling and makes the world a worse place, but it's their choice, not mine. I gotta respect that. Also I can argue with internet strangers all I want these days so it's all good. In the end it always comes down intention. You can be DA for lots of reasons. You can pretend to be one to mask your actual opinion (dishonest). You can do it to "win" (not really discussing, merely one-upmanship), or you can do it out of a genuine desire to understand the issue at heart better, via reflection from people with unique viewpoints. If I have to pretend to believe something I don't to get that going, I will. And I don't fuck around - I'll defend that position as if it were my own, because only if an opinion can hold its own in an honest and informed discussion is it an opnion worth holding.It is incredibly painful to feel that in order for you to care about my safety, I have to win this verbal contest you have constructed “for fun.”
That's where I get the feeling the author doesn't understand or care what playing devil's advocate means. I'm already convinced that feminism is the right thing. I already care about your safety! If I choose the have this discussion it's because I think I can learn something from you. That's a compliment! If you don't feel like that discussion will benefit you too, I won't be upset if you walk away (except if you do this to avoid questioning your beliefs - but the difference between that is generally pretty obvious).
I'm also not questioning that some people genuinely enjoy an interesting intelligent argument, the way I enjoy playing FB Scrabble with someone who truly challenges me -- not someone who will play the first word they see. My problem is here I'm just saying, (as I say further down in the comment post that I linked) that I can't be invested in that conversation if I'm not getting your genuine thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, but that's just me. I'm sure you're in good company with others who enjoy hearing and debating all sides, even ones that are not sincerely held. Thanks for your reply.If I have to pretend to believe something I don't to get that going, I will. And I don't fuck around - I'll defend that position as if it were my own, because only if an opinion can hold its own in an honest and informed discussion is it an opinion worth holding.
yes, definitely. And opinion should be backed up with evidence so that all people in the discussion can consider and weigh the evidence.If I have to pretend to believe something I don't to get that going, I will....I'll defend that position as if it were my own,
In that case you are truly "playing" DA for the game.
Well, on the internet I usually don't have to DA, so that shouldn't be a problem.
I will concede that you seem like a reasonable person. Have you stopped, to maybe consider, that your willingness to be reasonable is actually a defense mechanism to protect your fragile ego? You say you don't care, but how do we know you're not putting on a tough front, yet deep inside, you have a vulnerable, caring heart? You know, like in those Hollywood Moving Pictures that everyone goes on and on about? ;) This statement is incompatible with my world view. I'm not sure I want to talk to you anymore. :(I sure hope not! I'm usually pretty ready to admit when I'm wrong, but that doesn't happen very often - so maybe I'm actually not and just tell myself I am. Then again I usually don't have the time to lead elaborate discussions.
Also you're wrong.
It's not really a question of ego for me: I want my internal model of the world to be as close to the objective truth as possible. I'm happy if someone helps me improve it. I guess I'm a bit weird? Debating to "prove" your position is not really debating IMO, that's just arguing. Your ego shouldn't be at stake, your arguments should. Also, Hollywood? What is that, some kind of forest? ;)
Hmm, since I usually have problems finding people to debate with it helps to start one of you take the stance everyone else doesn't. It's just a way to test your own beliefs by attacking them yourself. Not as good as a really convinced opponent by a long shot - but almost as good. It's a basic tool in writing philosophy papers, as well. You always look for arguments against your position and then think about how to defeat those, and so on. It's also how debate clubs work - you don't get to choose your stance, you're assigned.
Nah, it was one of my flatmates. It totally was a miscommunication on my part and it wasn't pretty, but we smoothed things over pretty quick. And yeah, I know most people don't care for that kinda stuff. But that means we just end up agreeing with each other and then staring into our beer :P
I'm not comfortable sharing my list, and I don't think anyone else should, either. I wouldn't want the responsibility and I can see it easily facilitating witch hunts. I think the site dynamics are better off with people making their own decisions about their own feeds.
I know - it's responsibility and power; but it's still self-moderation, just optional outsourcing to others' self-moderation (being under their wing, or partially so..) Pretty much I'm lazy, and I like the site dynamics as they are, so I'm scared of them changing and want to launch a pre-emptive strike - because it's easier to start separating and segregating astute/ insightful/ brilliant commentary from crap /now/ rather than trying to do it on a larger scale once the community is huge. The result could be like sub-hubski boards (EG: ask-hubski) - but without knowing it there could be multiple overlapping types of communities on the same board - like trans-dimensional communities in the same space.
I guess laziness and being one's own moderator doesn't go well together. I think a certain tendency not to openly disagree with well established (and well followed) members might already be happening. I see that as rather unfortunate. Expanding that to subscribable block lists would iin my opinion be the beginning of the end of any decent culture of open discussion.
I'd agree with this. Hubski has power users. It's okay to admit that, because every social site has them. It's the nature of the beast and it's something that happens organically. That said, being able to subscribe to their block list would give them too much power and it would have a direct effect on the site that would probably go unnoticed by the less savvy users. The moderation tools on this site really aren't that hard to use and they really don't take up much of your time. If you see someone being a consistent problem for you, all it takes is a few clicks to solve that. Best of all, it's completely reversable.
I would definitely want a more flat even distribution of power - though from my perspective, I'd be giving a lot of trust to a user, following their filters - if word gift out that someone was abusing their subscribers, I'd completely lose trust and jump ship, with one click, and my experience of hubski would remain similar - rather than if a certain user was an actual moderator... Right? Anyway - reading all the responses, I certainly, as a n00b, don't want to mess with the awesome hubski culture and philosophy; and maybe this place isn't for lazy people..
We speak a different language here. We don't say "upvote." We say "circledot" (or apparently "boop"). We don't say "power user." We say "active contributor with many followers."
Contributor being the most descriptive word. "User" impies so much less than "contributor." There is an interesting discussion here about hubski's concepts of "power users." OK -- now I have an idea. For my next hubski birthday, I'll create a hubski vocabulary list. Contributions PLEASE. (Should be a separate post, eh?)Hubski has power users. It's okay to admit that, because every social site has them. It's the nature of the beast and it's something that happens organically.
There's another thread suggesting a tag/flair system. I think that's about as far as it should go in terms of a "nemesis" list. People's bad behavior tends to be self-revealing, and I think drawing lines in the sand goes against the nature of the site. That said I'm 100% for flagging Nazis and racists.
But if the site is self moderated, for every racist user, every user will need to block a user once, where as if the shared list was crowd sourced, the action would need to be taken once. Hubski has 10 users, scenario 1: one racist user, posts a comment, 9 people filter the user Scenario 2: 10 users, one makes a list and adds the filter, same effect if subscribed to the list. Hubski has 1 million users, 10 racist users Scenario 1, each posts a racist comment - ten million filter actions must take place to 'self moderate' the racism Scenario 2, a user takes 10 filter actions publicly, same effect as with scenario 1, for all subscribed.