I just noticed that I've been muted by a user. Hubski sure does make it obvious! I was somewhat shocked, though, because I've made a point of being extra polite here. Taking a quick gander at their user page I see that we probably disagree about some things politically. Other than that, I can't think of another reason.
So in all likelihood this person read something I wrote and didn't like it, so they muted me. That doesn't bother me in the least, but it hadn't even occurred to me that people would use the function that way. Now that I have reason to suspect someone does it makes me wonder how common it is and what else people use it for.
What do you use the mute function for? Have you used the mute function? Do you think the mute function should be used sparingly? Liberally? Will excessive muting lead to a chilling or splintering effect on Hubski?
Should there be some loose, unenforced guidelines about when to mute other users? A sort of generally agreed upon reasoning in order to keep the community from fragmenting? What would that look like? Should it be considered reasonable to repost a thread to the same hashtag if the previous one is submitted by a mute-happy user?
Personally, I'd never used any of the mute, hush, or user-filtering functions on Hubski until I blocked the person who muted me. Should that, by the way, be considered reasonable or poor Hubski etiquette?
How do these kinds of scenarios affect Hubski and its functioning? What happens when we have a bunch of tribally splintered groups with their own mute lists? Is that something to be avoided? Is it something that can be avoided?
I mute people who are dicks. During periods of immigrant quiet I mute people who are dicks to me in at least two rounds of discussion. During periods of immigrant noise I mute people who are dicks to others. it has nothing to do with dissenting opinion or disagreement. b_b and I often disagree. mk and I often disagree. The trick is we disagree without ad hominem attacks on each other, disparaging comments or belittling dialogue. I unmute people who I work things out with. Something everyone fails to consider when bitching about muting is it's completely reversible. Muted? I'll bet you can figure out why. Don't want to be muted? Work it out with the person who muted you. Can't contact them? find someone who mutually follows both of you and get them to intercede. Learn to recover from your misunderstandings and the world will be a better place. If I post content, I am 100% within my rights to keep the discussion of that content dick-free. I am doing a service to those who follow my content by doing so. If I post something about microbiology, and the best microbiologist on Hubski is also a dick, his dickish comments have no place in the discussion. Maybe he hasn't been a dick to you. Maybe he never will be. But if I post it, and he's been a dick to me in the past, odds are he's going to be a dick in the future and the discussion should be about microbiology, not about me and the dick. As eightbitsamurai mentions, the undertone of this discussion is always entitlement and it's always driven by people who are new here. This time it's unusual in that a good bulk of our new users actually signed up for an account the last two or three times they got pissed off at Reddit but then forgot about it until recently, but it doesn't change the fact that it's people with under a hundred comments complaining about the behavior of people with over a hundred comments. LOOK. The person who posted that thread you want to comment on? they don't owe you shit. the world will continue in its orbit without your pithy contribution and, amazingly enough, will likely be more civil through your absence. Some of us have been here for years and have other users blocked who have also been here for years. Some of us have even had people blocked for years only to unblock them. That social pressure you're feeling from being blocked? It's a power for good. It shapes behavior. It encourages civility and demonstrates that there are consequences for vitriol. If you don't like being muted, stop being the kind of person who gets muted. If you don't think you are, then chances are good you and the person who muted you have nothing to say to each other anyway. This is not a site about how Jeff and Jeri can't get along. This is a site about thoughtful discussion. You're muted because someone judged you incapable of it. Work it out or move on because those of us who have been here a while have been through half a dozen of these shirt-rending, hair-tearing rap sessions about the evils of censorship and I'm here to tell ya - Every new influx of Reddit uncouth causes an expansion not just of muting, but of the mute options available.
I'm happy to say I haven't even really run across much in the way of ad hominem attacks yet, but it sounds like I've just been lucky. This sounds like a totally reasonable use of muting, though. Personally, I don't care that much with the one person who muted me. I feel like I've refrained from personally attacking anyone on Hubski. If they want to mute me that's their business, but it did make me think about how people use it.
Here you're detailing ideal use of Hubski. Yes, if you're being reasonable in your muting practices, which it sounds like you are, you're basically creating better threads for other people. However, not everyone is so thoughtful or discerning. Let's recall that my example was not of one person being a dick to someone else, but of their disagreeing about Israel. We'll go ahead and say that it's explicitly not in a racist way. It's really not about me, man. I don't feel the deep desire to respond to this person's posts. It's just an aspect of Hubski's moderation system that I hadn't considered before and one that sounds like it might run into some scaling issues if it's abused. I don't think I am the kind of person who gets muted. From what this thread seems to indicate ideological muting is something of a rarity. Some people do it but not most people. Every new influx of Reddit uncouth causes an expansion not just of muting, but of the mute options available. Again, I know you wrote this all at once and I'm responding to it all at once but you seem to have decided to make the tail end of this post personal so I'm going to repeat myself for emphasis. This isn't about me. This isn't about the person who muted me, I don't care about that person and I don't expect to suddenly be muted by 1000 other people. This thread exists because it hadn't even occurred to me that anyone on Hubski would use the muting function in this way and I was wondering how many people did and what else they used it for. That is literally all. Please direct your hostility toward users complaining about being muted toward someone who is actually complaining about being muted. Thank you.I mute people who are dicks. During periods of immigrant quiet I mute people who are dicks to me in at least two rounds of discussion. During periods of immigrant noise I mute people who are dicks to others. it has nothing to do with dissenting opinion or disagreement. b_b and I often disagree. mk and I often disagree. The trick is we disagree without ad hominem attacks on each other, disparaging comments or belittling dialogue.
I unmute people who I work things out with. Something everyone fails to consider when bitching about muting is it's completely reversible. Muted? I'll bet you can figure out why. Don't want to be muted? Work it out with the person who muted you. Can't contact them? find someone who mutually follows both of you and get them to intercede. Learn to recover from your misunderstandings and the world will be a better place.
If I post content, I am 100% within my rights to keep the discussion of that content dick-free. I am doing a service to those who follow my content by doing so. If I post something about microbiology, and the best microbiologist on Hubski is also a dick, his dickish comments have no place in the discussion. Maybe he hasn't been a dick to you. Maybe he never will be. But if I post it, and he's been a dick to me in the past, odds are he's going to be a dick in the future and the discussion should be about microbiology, not about me and the dick.
As eightbitsamurai mentions, the undertone of this discussion is always entitlement and it's always driven by people who are new here. This time it's unusual in that a good bulk of our new users actually signed up for an account the last two or three times they got pissed off at Reddit but then forgot about it until recently, but it doesn't change the fact that it's people with under a hundred comments complaining about the behavior of people with over a hundred comments. LOOK. The person who posted that thread you want to comment on? they don't owe you shit. the world will continue in its orbit without your pithy contribution and, amazingly enough, will likely be more civil through your absence.
If you don't like being muted, stop being the kind of person who gets muted. If you don't think you are, then chances are good you and the person who muted you have nothing to say to each other anyway.
This is not a site about how Jeff and Jeri can't get along. This is a site about thoughtful discussion. You're muted because someone judged you incapable of it. Work it out or move on because those of us who have been here a while have been through half a dozen of these shirt-rending, hair-tearing rap sessions about the evils of censorship and I'm here to tell ya -
See, and here you are, thinking I'm hostile. I'm not. I'm tired of the entitlement. We're all tired of the entitlement. There was a user on here that I didn't get along with. We were both strong personalities. Lots of people followed us both. We'd tried, on at least two occasions, to work through our differences and failed. We were better off not interacting with each other, despite the fact that we often posted similar content. And so it was, in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. But then 2015 came around and the newbies hounded her off. She deleted her account this time because we gained enough assholes that she couldn't hang. She didn't feel commenting in other people's posts because she got hounded. So she's gone now, and Hubski is lesser for it. You talk about my "ideal" use of the mute function. Isn't "ideal" what we should all strive for? Shouldn't the design of the site encourage "ideal" use? 'cuz see, we didn't have "block" until _wage was gone because the rest of us were able to use the tools available to maintain a civil discourse. It wasn't until the propagation of bad actors required stricter personal moderation tools. You're right. It's not about you. But you posted the thread, so you will be used as an example. If you don't care that much, why all the soul-searching? If not everyone is that thoughtful or discerning, why do you care who they mute or don't? Li'l secret: If Alfred has Bob muted but not Charlie, and Charlie really wants Bob's opinion on Alfred's post, Charlie can shout-out Bob and Bob will be able to reply to Charlie. This has two effects: the first of which, if Alfred really hates Bob, he might start muting Charlie. But if Alfred respects Charlie, he'll either let it slide or maybe even reconsider muting. Hey - he might even PM Charlie and Bob together so they can work their shit out. You can google "hubski muting" and see all this. It's not like zero thought has been put into the functionality, and it's not like your objections are new. The fact of the matter is, the system as it stands has evolved to reflect the interests and intent of the people who use it the most. Hubski is not based around subjects. At one point, mk actually got rid of tags, making it entirely about people. It was an experiment, and it was a failure, but it definitely demonstrated where the focus lies. Hubski is about people, and regardless of how knowledgeable two people are, if they can't get along they're not going to add anything to the discussion. Case in point: I gave you a differing opinion, and you took it as a personal attack. the majority of your response is buried under hurt feelings. That's why mute exists.
I hadn't realized that shout-outs worked like that, that's neat! Why the soul-searching? I wouldn't really call it that. I'm interested in what Hubski does to conversation. So far, in my experience, it seems to really encourage quality discussion. People seem to have a refreshing ability to disagree with one another and talk about it without it turning into a brawl. From what I can tell that's largely influenced by the moderation system, and this is an aspect of that that I literally had not once ever considered until I noticed today that someone had muted me. This left me with many questions about how Hubski users typically use the mute function, many of which have been answered in detail. Some by you! Sorry if I misread hostility where it didn't exist!
To be fair, your original comment seemed passive-aggressive as fuck; even though it's probably unintentional. Anyways, thanks for this comment. It was enlightening to see this topic from the point of view of a veteran Hubskier, and is one of the first comments in this thread to make me go "huh... I see where he's coming from". You could well be right, maybe us new users are entitled little pricks, but as we learn about the site, its dynamics, and its users, hopefully that will change. Just bear in mind that we are still getting used to the site, don't know how the site evolved, and also forget that bumping old posts is encouraged here. From my experience, moving into Hubski from Reddit is a little like moving into a new country. The 'culture shock' is pretty big, and having locals shouting "damned immigrants!" at you isn't exactly helpful.
I'm not sure where I was passive. I think it's fair to say that it's aggressive-aggressive. This is because every time Reddit shits the bed, Hubski becomes borderline unusable. And we all REALLY LIKE the people we get who stick around, so we all suffer through two or three weeks of heavy sighs and exasperated PMs and baseline irritation and a thousand and one posts and comments about Reddit because we know that this is our culture, not yours, and you really want to contribute but Reddit is all you know, so we all act as welcoming and inviting as we can because odds are, if you found us here you will get along. But. - someone has to complain about the layout. - someone else has to complain about the lack of mobile. - someone else demands an API. - someone else spams #askhubski with a faux-intelligent discussion. - someone else decries muting - someone else decries ignoring - someone else has a public hissy-fit about that person that has them muted but they just gotta get in their words argh argh argh - and someone else has to predict the eventual demise of Hubski if it doesn't conform to their preconceived notions of how the place ought to work. This is why "lurk moar." If the average new user could STFU and watch for three weeks, they'd piss off exactly no one, they'd understand the site dynamics, they'd start following dozens of interesting people and when they wander into #pubski they'd know what everyone's talking about because Hubski is a place where once a week we can post a "random off-topic stuff from your life" thread and have it not descend into narcissistic chaos. That's unrealistic, though - Hubski is very much about participation, so we all do our best to suffer the children despite the fact that we see this stuff so often we can almost set our clocks by it. We know you're getting used to it. We know it's alien to you. What you need to know is that we're giving you every last bit of patience we got and that the semi-annual mute discussions tax many of us past the point of cheerfulness.To be fair, your original comment seemed passive-aggressive as fuck; even though it's probably unintentional.
Fair enough! I'm ashamed to admit I'm guilty of a few of those crimes. I suppose it's like when I try to assemble furniture from Ikea. I ignore the instructions and assume I'm doing it right, until I realize it's crooked and there are 15 screws left over. "Lurk moar" is my big take away from this whole thread anyway. Cheers!I'm not sure where I was passive. I think it's fair to say that it's aggressive-aggressive.
And here I was thinking you were a peaceful guy! Haha.
Piss me off? No. Make me resentful? Yes. I have better things to do today than weed the garden but this is a time-sensitive discussion and traditionally, it's my job to lance the boil. The fact of the matter is we can't put "you're wrong about muting" in the primer because Hubski is a highly-personalized experience. So every time we have an influx of users, we need to have a highly-personalized discussion of why you're wrong about muting. We do this because Hubski is a fragile ecosystem subject to shock and when a whole bunch of people show up and find nothing to talk about other than their freeze peaches, they drive away the people who actually add to the discussion. So somebody - and it's appropriate that it's the most polarizing member of the entire site - has to shape the discussion in such a way that the people who demand their freeze peaches get it but also in such a way that the people who make this place what it is feel they've gotten their voice represented, too. It's impossible to get the hang of a community's long-term dynamics without being a long-term member. It's also impossible to retain long-term members if the environment ceases to be conducive to them. And every time we get a Reddit influx, I see a whole bunch of new names and notice a dearth of old. The yammering about stuff other than what was here before you drives away the people who make this place what it is. Not all at once, and not totally, but we're legitimately fighting attrition. 8bit is putting on his "I don't have to suffer you crackers" face which is never good. Ref has been largely absent, minus some lashing out. Several other names I'm forgetting are finding better things to do, primarily because we've got a bunch of new faces jostling around and shining their newness. And I'll bet every one of you has some greatness. And I'm looking forward to finding out what it is. but 8bit wrote a goddamn video game about Hubski. If I have to burn every last one of you to the ground to keep him around, I'll do it with a smile on my face. So the gentle "there, there, mute isn't so bad, actually it's really handy!" discussion for the newbies has to be balanced out with a "STFU and get out of my way n00b" flavor for the old guard so that they remember that this land is our land and that we will always favor the incumbent. there are two sides to the discussion and both of them need to make it from "peaches fresh or frozen" to "be excellent to each other." It's nuance that I didn't really want to flex today, but there it is. Does that make sense?
It makes absolute sense. It actually reminds me of an article I read damn near a decade ago at this point about maintaining the core users of a community so that others don't get alienated as the atmosphere drifts from what it once was, leading to splintering and basically just becoming the rest of the internet. We used to do this by flaming and trolling every single new member. Most people would leave. So yeah, I get ya. ;)
I'm two days short of three weeks, so I'm going to take a bit of a risk and pester you with another question. If the majority of hubski users feel that way (and it seems like they do) why not make a policy change around it? Mute new users, or make the site invite/application only? If there's a two week or so delay between when people ask to join and when they are let in, that might encourage lurking. It could also be used to throttle new users so we don't swarm in and crowd out your discussions. I feel bad for people complaining about the reddit influx, but as one of them I'm also happy I found this place.
Sorry. Got busy. Wanna see unholy hell fire? BAM. No, no wait. Wanna see even more unholy hellfire? DOUBLE BAM. All that blood in the water, and we ended up implementing it without any announcement. I can ignore users newer than 2 days. So can you. So can we all. And you know what? It helps a lot. Not just me - because it's an entirely owner-facing choice - but those who would annoy me. It's a really useful feature that is entirely dolphin safe. But ZOMG. The blood spilled. The treasure squandered. The panties twisted. The butts hurt. So it's a work in progress, really.
As an ultra new user, and being directly affected by this, I completely agree. It makes no sense for a butterfly to have a strenous discussion with a caterpillar. Although I might even face the consequence of this, I realize the logic of it
Gonna have to make a mute discussion bingo at some point. The words "hugbox" and "echo chamber" are just code for "LET ME SHOVE MY SHITTY OPINIONS DOWN YOUR THROAT AGAINST YOUR WILL, DAMMIT." Yes, I said shitty opinions. Contrary to what your douche freshman philosophy professor with a ponytail told you, you can, in fact, have a shitty opinion, and I can, in fact, choose to ignore it. I'd rather be hugged in a box that echos like a giant ass chamber then be stabbed by a piece of shit racist. Also it's really easy to argue for "discussion and logic and reason" when you're a straight white dude and nobody will argue that your existence is invalid or that women deserve it.
Sorry, was all that meant to address me directly? I'm not a straight anything. White? Sure. Dude? I have mixed feelings. I'm not here to play privilege bingo, though, or any sort of bingo. I'm on Hubski because I think it's a great place for thoughtful discussion. I didn't take philosophy or have a professor with a ponytail and I don't think they really have "freshmen" at community college. Why are you engaging in so much rampant generalization? Anyway, it's not as though the only things being muted are racist, misogynistic, or transphobic. Personally, those are reasons why I would mute someone. Do you genuinely believe that there are no discussions to be had about splintering or chilling effects on discussion caused by frivolous muting?
Shitty opinions are one of those things that "I know it when I see it", and I wish I had a better way of explaining to people why their opinions are shitty. What makes an opinion shitty? Is it when it's formed without sufficient information or experience? When it's fringe? When it's formed on the basis of pop culture rather than... what else? I don't even know what questions to ask. I guess I can just ask you directly: What do you think makes an opinion a shitty opinion?
I would agree with you if there wasn't already a functionality that works perfectly fine to get rid of opinions you dislike. I don't think anyone wants to force you to listen to our opinions. After all, you can just as easily scroll past any post with my name on it and ignore it. I don't mind if you don't want to read my posts. But again, why should you dictate what others are allowed to read? It's already made very easy for anyone to filter posters they dislike, so why take it a step further and filter posters so that other people can't filter them themselves?
I have muted no one and probably won't use that option at all. I like reading opposing viewpoints from my own even if they sound completely crazy.
Having your views challenged is healthy in my opinion, it prompts you to re-evaluate them, to analyse something you may have taken for granted before. Change and confrontation are parts of growth, to me it is logical this should apply equally mentally and physically. A lack of opposing views leads to echo chambers, which have a habit of turning nasty and vitriolic in a short amount of time.
It's totally ideological for me. I came here from Reddit mostly to get away from racism, sexism, etc. I don't care if I sound like the person on the left and and the person I'm muting sounds like the guy on the right: I'm muting you if I disagree with you strongly enough. I find, though, that there's a pretty large overlap between jerks and sincere racists. And there's a pretty low overlap between posting racist content and posting interesting content. When I mute someone purely because I don't like their views, I generally find that I'm not missing much and I'm glad I did it for other reasons, too.
Having opinions you don't like and can't bear = genocide. This is what some really stupid people actually believe.
I do not use and absolutely despise the mute button. If you can already filter people you dislike, and hide their comments, what then is the point of the mute button other than to silence people you dislike? What about power users that are very popular? Should they be allowed to dictate who we hear from or not on their posts? It's idiotic. Not only can people now inundate themselves with hugbox opinions that subscribe to their echo chamber, but they can curate their posts so only their confidantes and yes-men will post in response. Where's the discussion?
Because they're allowed as much a say in the discussion as anyone else. It's up to each person whether or not they agree with their opinions, and I have no right to keep them from being heard. That's my point, that people are allowed to form their own opinions, and muting someone simply because you disagree with that opinion is just pathetic. Again, if people can block and filter on their own, without any type of alteration to other users' experiences, then why is there any need at all for the mute button?
No. They are only guaranteed a say in discussions that they initiate (by posting them). That's the way it works around here. I can start a discussion, and I can exclude you if I like. Tough shit for you.
If you've pissed off someone and they mute you, buck up and roll with it. Or ask to be un-muted (politely, I'd suggest). But you do not have a right to comment wherever you want around here.Because they're allowed as much a say in the discussion as anyone else.
As much as it might hurt to be quietly muted by people you once thought were your friends, it is true, nobody is guaranteed a say on any post that isn't their own. I'm the biggest advocate of "freeze peach" as there is, but even I can recognize that this is how Hubski works, and it isn't that bad, especially if we're comparing it with the more draconian and top-down version of reddit moderation. Say what you want, and if you can't say it in a reply to someone, then say it on your own. If it's that important, and you're civil, I take an optimistic view that you'll still find an audience for your opinions. And if not, well, the world's going to hell in a handbasket anyways, so what?
I think the issue here arises because while they might surround themselves with yesmen to their best ability, some of the other people who respond to threads they post may not be so insular in their associations or in their thinking. I've certainly had conversations that were more engaging than the main posts they were part of. A crappy OP can be a great thread.
Yeah, I get that. But there are clubs and bars in the city that you can't get into and I'm sure they're filled with fascinating conversation. That doesn't mean you'll get to be a part of it. That's just a part of life. Here's what I see - zeroFail isn't complaining that he can only get hugbox opinions, that he is stuck in an echo chamber, that he is confined to yes men. He's complaining that other people have the option and to ignore him and his opinion, to keep him out of their conversations. He's arguing that a single user shouldn't be allowed to dictate who others hear from, while dictating who others hear from. That's the issue.
It's not just him, though. Say we're in a thread on the #microbiology tag because we all totally love microbiology. zeroFail has just created a thread about microscopic spores. You actually know more about microscopic spores than anyone else on the site. You're actually an expert on the specific type of spore we're discussing and someone's made a grievous error that all the rest of us are happily going along with. Unfortunately zeroFail disagrees with your position on Israel and has muted you, so you can't contribute to the thread. Do you miss out? Yeah, sure, a little. You don't get to fulfill that impulse to share relevant knowledge that you possess. By and large, though, the subscribers of #microbiology miss out. Instead of having some new factual information now they're spreading some nonsense they read on Hubski around because of your disagreement with zeroFail on a completely unrelated topic. Not such a big deal when it's only a handful of people blocking one another. If it gets out of hand, though, you can see how the quality of conversation might suffer.
The problem is that we're dealing with the hypotheticals of a future site and for any answer I give you on a hypothetical it's infinitely possible for you to come back with, "yeah, but what if..." that doesn't quite fit the rule. If you're not sure how something fits into the culture, observe the culture more. Try to figure out why people do what they do and don't worry too much about defining actions for every possible future. Do what you feel is right and if you have a community that agrees, they can follow with you. I was trying to avoid saying it but, and damnit kleinbl00, lurk moar.
Well, we'd have to look at the established pattern of what we've already seen. I don't know what that is because while I've apparently had an account for two years I haven't been using it nearly that long. Has there been an issue so far at all with things like block lists or groups fragmenting?
See, if this site had user-made forums, or personal blogs, then I'd be there with you. If it's your space, then you're allowed to say who comments on it. I might disagree with blocking, but it's your life. But when you're a user posting political discourse or general discussion, what do you gain from keeping me from the conversation? Most posts on Hubski are links to off site articles. Why should they be allowed to keep my comments from being seen? They've essentially made the decision for every user on the site that I have nothing worthwhile to say, which is absolutely against what Hubski is about in the first place, namely self moderation. The point is that everyone is allowed to filter who they want, but they don't have a chance to even decide filtering me is worthwhile because someone else already said, "I disagree with you. You don't deserve to make a point." I mean, hell, I wouldn't be able to have this discussion with you right now if the OP decided to mute me. How could anyone find this feature to be in any way fair in the spirit of Hubski?
You've been here a little over a month, how are you the authority on what Hubski stands for? Read Kb's epic thread in this post. It brought tears of laughter to my eyes but only because it's such a keen distillation of the truth about muting, blocking and the interactions with new users. Welcome to Hubski all the same. A great deal of thought and debate has been put into the way the site functions and the moderation tools which isn't at all evident when you haven't been here for very long.
Yep. Also, nothing is stopping you from editorializing in the post and adding to the value of the link. If someone else had you muted but your commentary is robust and well thought out, I might just follow you and eventually your posts will win the day.
Hoorah!
The feature is fair to the spirit of Hubski, because it was made by the people who made Hubski. You can repost the article here just like you can "repost" an article on twitter, because the core of this site is separate user groups and not a unified front page.
I have 53 people muted. 45 of those users are spammers. Of the 8 people that aren't, 1 has left the site permanently. 6 of the remaining users are disruptive. The last one's informative and helpful, but I can't stand them, so in they go. I think that users should use the tools given to them to make their experience on the site better.
How do you see so much spammers? I barely see them.
I came across one user who I would classify as a spammer, a lot of their posts were in capitals and it was coming from the same three domains -- I use an ad-blocker but the design of the sites and the non-ad elements have given me a pretty clear idea of how it must look otherwise. I have muted them but it was a tough decision, as some of their posts do actually have interesting comments on. The winning factor was it's a topic I'm generally uninterested in and their articles don't do much to change that.
The first for all of them, often both. Note that it's not just that (there's plenty of people that hurt the conversation on here), but also if what they do give as input doesn't counterbalance their dickery. That's basically a judgement call, but I like to feel like I'm not missing out on something from them before I mute.
The moderation tools on Hubski are psychologically weird. For the longest time, we've relied on third parties like moderators and curators to give us guidance on what's good and what's bad. The benefit from this system, besides cleaner content feeds, is a peace of mind that comes from less control. When something "bad" gets through, you're able to blame the third party. If something "good" doesn't get through, you're able to blame the third party. At Hubski you're that moderator and what's so weird about this, for me and few others I've seen, is that the scary part of being your own moderator isn't accidentally letting the bad through, but accidentally filtering the good out. There's a dozen little psychological oddities like that one attached to this, and frankly any, new system. Some of those oddities may affect, some some may not, and because of that I don't believe there's any one answer, one set of etiquette guidelines, that should be laid out for everyone. You're allowed to do whatever you want with your moderation powers but remember this is a community that aims towards person to person connection. That's your primary tool here. If you don't agree with them or they don't agree with you, you can try to talk as two flesh and blood human beings, and if that doesn't work (or you don't feel like it) you can use the other tools at your disposal.
That's how I feel about it. I just blocked this person who muted me because I don't want posts that I can't reply to showing up in my feed. I did unblock them from PMing me, though, just in case they decide later that it was a mistake and want to rectify the situation. Other than that I haven't even hushed anyone yet!
I have one or two people muted, but that's really it. I only mute if I don't want a volatile opinion in a thread I post especially posts about race or gender like "feminism isn't a real movement." That stuff doesn't breed interesting or stimulating conversation, so I have no interest in it. You've really gotta be inflammatory for me to mute you though.
If we knew everyone in real life who actively avoided us then we might be surprised by the amount of people that don't avoid us online. I don't live my life to please everyone, nor do I post opinions to be agreed with. If that happens then great, if someone changes my mind even better. I don't like to mute anyone. I've muted four people two spam accounts. Even if they want to argue on a post I made I'm usually game to let them do it simply because it improves the site, and there is only one person I have blocked.
I mute obvious trolls, and a couple of users who were probably earnest but so obnoxious that they brought drama into every thread they touched. I'm cautious with the mute button because I don't want to exclude anyone from the weekly music thread just for annoying me.
I don't mute people on a whim, and put a few moments more thought into it. Situation: commenter is combative, arguing, insulting, opinionated, constantly attacking, belittling other people, "you're wrong," "if you believe that then you're an idiot" and so forth. I think, hey, person could just be having a bad day; we all have 'em. I click on their user profile and read their recent comments. If said comments are belittling, namecalling, "you're an idiot", turning something that could've been civil into a drama queen shitstorm... then I mute. This includes people who have the same ideologies as me.
The only user I've muted so far not only had polar opposite ideologies, but was unable to hold even an attempt at reasonable conversation. Their post history also showed almost no contribution to the site besides hate speech or the occasional personal anecdote. He was mostly just following another user around as hype-man. I'm not afraid of opposite opinions. If you have interesting reasons for your view I wouldn't mute over that. But if you seek me out to argue and can't explain your view, I'm pretty sure I won't miss out on much by not hearing from you. I guess it's all about content for me. If you are on this site and I'm learning from you, I see no reason to mute, even if we disagree.
This is my "favorite" type of user. It just makes me laugh imagining it.The only user I've muted so far not only had polar opposite ideologies, but was unable to hold even an attempt at reasonable conversation. Their post history also showed almost no contribution to the site besides hate speech or the occasional personal anecdote. He was mostly just following another user around as hype-man.
hushed users: 6
muted users: 5
filtered users: 23
blocked users: 1 I'm on my 1636th day here and these are my stats. Most of those are spammers who are probably long gone. As far as I know I only have one person on that list who is active. I know what he's going to say, it's ignorant and offensive and listening to him would improve my life in no way.
Yeah, I think that's called hush. That's what I'd do if I didn't want to have someone's stuff jumping right up at me generally. I don't want to offend someone or keep someone out of a discussion just because I noticed I'm not typically interested in what they have to say.
I use it just for spam. I don't think guidelines are much use as people will make our own, stronger communal guidelines (for example, Reddit's myth that the downvote button means something other than "Fuck that/you, -you're wrong!"). If there is any sort of top-down attempt at etiquette, I'd say keep it to one line and let the users strive for that on their own as each situation comes up. Thoughtful conversation works to this end, and I feel that trying to micromanage culture for every button and mechanic is swimming upstream.
I'm in the same boat as you are; a user seems to have muted me on ideological grounds as well without having ever even spoken to me. The moderation system is good overall, I feel. People might use it in unfortunate ways, but the concept is a good one, even if it's easily abused. The end result is that certain users will only see things that they agree with, or if they do see dissenting opinions, they can rest assured that they will always have the final word and feel like they're always right. It doesn't really affect me though, it's more their loss than anything else. I feel that the discussion is what makes Hubski what it is, and they're losing out on it. If a discussion begins to get too heated I'll just politely leave and even then that's only happened to me once before. I don't use the moderation functions at all really. The only thing I filter out are some (at the moment, 2) spammers on #technology. If the practice does become popular though, I'll personally just leave Hubski and find another site.
I'm considering blocking you because you share stuff that Grendel posts. Because of the way moderation works on hubski, you're collateral damage because you're directly adjacent to him. You're not conscious enough of his trolling to have muted and avoided him, so I don't want you to influence what I see on hubski. This is less an attack on your ideology as it is your lack of hubskian social norms.
I'm not familiar with Grendel's content. What stand out for you as reasons to filter it out? Why would that lead to you blocking RicePaddy? Wouldn't it make more sense to filter him or just not follow him? How would RicePaddy influence what you see on Hubski if you're not following him?
My first interaction with Grendel came from this post: He intentionally changed "transgender" in the title of his post to "transsexual", and his intention was to troll. He pretends to be unbiased, but he introduces a strong anti-feminist, anti-trans, pro-chauvinism tone to everything he posts. Really, I should say "anti-SJW", because that's what he thinks of it. He knows what he's doing. He's trying to infect the hubski zeitgeist with misogyny and transphobia.
Step 2. Post a bunch of subtly anti-SJW stuff, like the example I gave where he substituted an offensive word (transsexual) for a non-offensive one (transgender). Step 3. All the nerds who like the science stuff will be more inclined to trust his opinions on the anti-SJW stuff. Step 4. Reddit.
This is exactly what happened to Reddit. This is the foot-in-the-door technique of all abusers and trolls. Over time, he will escalate the tone of his posts as he gains more support in the community, all while playing the victim. I have seen this happen to more communities than I can count, and I saw it kill Reddit. Read over Grendel's comments. Ask yourself: Is this the example of permissible behavior that you want new hubski users to see and think is normal? Is this something you're willing to let snowball out of the control? Risk of allowing Grendel in our community: Eternal September, breakdown of civility, Reddit-ificiation. Benefit of allowing Grendel in our community: Some good science posts that others would be posting anyway. The rational decision is excommunication.
Step 1. Post a bunch of cool science stuff to get nerds to like you.
It cuts both ways too. Not only will Grendel gain more support within the community (hey rational science guy hates women, maybe he has a point). But he will also affect the type of user that joins and the type of user that stays. Hubski is mentioned very, very often on r/redditalternatives. As they come over and check out the site, the creepy sexist types will think they've found a home. And as women trying to find a safe space come to the site, his posts are likely to greet them. Not only that, but when they click his username, they see he has a lot of followers. So as Hubski handles this next influx, guess which types we are more likely to recruit.
The disturbing thing is that he appears to have no understanding of science at all. One of my very first days here I ran into him on a thread about Tim Hunt and women in science (aidrocsid was there and we and others had a very civil, mutually beneficial discussion!). Grendel showed up and started doing his usual anti-feminist thing. At one point he claimed social scientists weren't scientists at all, and when I asked him why and even gave him multiple choice options, he freaked out and said that I think logic is the tool of the patriarchy (???)Not only will Grendel gain more support within the community (hey rational science guy hates women, maybe he has a point)
Why did I click that. Why. I've had a terrible day at work and posts like that just make me so done with this field. I'm mentoring a high school girl and some days I feel like I'm doing her a terrible disservice by not telling her to run the hell away and don't look back. The best part is people like Grendel are the guys who say "women just don't like to code, it's fine." Then they move to San fran or Seattle and whine about how there are no single women. Turns out when you chase women out of an industry, they become scarce in tech hub cities. Go figure.
Sorry :(. I debated not posting that comment thread, but I figured it's a prime example of his troll-iness to users who hadn't seen him before. I feel ya there. But I think it's important to be a role model for young women -- if I didn't have a series of awesome female mentors throughout high school I don't think I would have gone into science. (Also, sorry about your bad day at work! Hope it gets better.)I'm mentoring a high school girl and some days I feel like I'm doing her a terrible disservice by not telling her to run the hell away and don't look back.
Don't be sorry! It's a conversation I've had myself many times. I'm the only woman on my team (of 12), so when I screw up I feel like I let my gender down. Combine that with reading about how good women supposedly have it, and well, I'm throwing myself a bit of a pity party. I'll wallow a little tonight and move on tommorow, I'm too stubborn to go anywhere.
FOR REAL THOUGH. Like, if we're not perfect then we just confirm all the negative stereotypes to these people. I'm with you in spirit! I'm the only woman on my team (of 12), so when I screw up I feel like I let my gender down.
I'm throwing myself a bit of a pity party. I'll wallow a little tonight
Thanks so much for the kind words. It's been a tough week, and while normally I don't let that stuff bother me, it's easy to get overwhelmed. When so many people are so comfortable being cruel online, kindness stands out, and you being nice yesterday really helped. Anyway, feeling better today. Onto the next battle!
I have only ever muted 3 spammers, all from some time ago.
As far as I'm aware, the only person who has muted me, is Grendel. Maybe I'm just lucky.
Now I find this interesting. You've just followed me, though I know I have re-shared Grendels posts before (in fact looking at your shared posts, so have you!). I didn't know Grendel was trolling, and to be honest still am unsure if he is or he just has strong opinions, so I shared some of his content that I found interesting and for a while I followed him. When I found out just how vehemently people are disagreeing with him I unfollowed so that I wasn't being lumped into a group with him, just like you have just done. I've gone back and forth on the idea of muting and blocking, personally I think it can be dangerous to block out opinions that are contrary to your own (even if they are made maliciously) and so the most I am likely to do now is to hush someone. Like I said, it's interesting. I am glad you followed me, even though we disagree on some things.
I agree with this. I do not agree with this. There is no place for bad actors in my community. I choose not to spend the mental energy combatting trolls. Trolls such as Grendel are intelligent, and they choose their words carefully. They are masters of psychological abuse. It is harmful to the health of our community, and to the mental health of each of us as individuals, to have anything at all to do with Grendel. People who don't understand how truly dangerous it is to allow sociopaths like Grendel to have any voice at all, are the unwitting pawns of the cycle of abuse. I am considering creating a hubski bot which will re-post Grendel's posts, so as to not allow him to have any inkling of hegemony over discussions pertaining to interesting science topics.I think it can be dangerous to block out opinions that are contrary to your own
(even if they are made maliciously)
I don't want to take away Grendel's voice, but I also don't want it to go unchecked. If you post on the feminist tag with anti feminist bs, I don't want someone new to hubski to think that's what represents the site (I did at first). It's much better if you click comments on that stuff and see a rational voice with several others drowning out the hatespeech. So i comment and disagree. And now he's muted me and he can continue to mess up global unchecked. I'm pretty sure the only reason he posts all the other things is so he won't get muted when he's trolling. His comments reflect that - they are mostly on troll posts, with much less of them being on science.
Yes, I agree. He knows exactly what he's doing. It's important that we as a community raise our consciousness of this sort of behavior and stamp it out. I do. He's abusing the maxims of good faith that underpin a prosocial community. He's a bad actor. He doesn't want to have fruitful discussions, he only wants to rile people to anger and mislead new users. I mean, it's in his fucking name: Grendel, the troll from Beowulf.I'm pretty sure the only reason he posts all the other things is so he won't get muted when he's trolling. His comments reflect that - they are mostly on troll posts, with much less of them being on science.
I don't want to take away Grendel's voice,
This this this this omfg this. Whenever "free speech" gets wheeled out by people I get frustrated because defending violent rhetoric as free speech makes speech so much less free for other people. Whenever I post something to hubski, I have no choice but to remember that there is someone on here who literally wants me hurt. I can't forget that he has followers. I can't know which of these are subscribing to his hate. I have to hope that none of them will turn on me. I have to hope this because to protect my sanity, I have to commit a crime that people here consider worse than hate speech or intimidation. "Censorship."People who don't understand how truly dangerous it is to allow sociopaths like Grendel to have any voice at all, are the unwitting pawns of the cycle of abuse.
Don't block me... Pls... :c No but seriously, I'm guilty by association? I don't always circle-dot things because I agree with them though, sometimes I circle-dot things that I disagree with, but spawned a decent discussion. How do you use the circle-dot button, or how do you feel a Hubskier 'should' use it? In the specific case of Grendel, I disagree with probably about 80% of the stuff he says/posts (he's been posting some decent science-y stuff recently, it seems). When it comes to the race/gender issues that gained him notoriety I probably disagree somewhere along the lines of 98%. It's like he takes the absolute extreme opposite view to the average hubskier (or the average anyone really).
You're not guilty by association, and I want to make a special point about this. I feel an ethical imperative to block people who associate with the True Guilty, such as Grendel. Without doing this, the problem of Grendel's creeping corruption of the hubski community will not be solved. He will have a second-order influence on the hubski zeitgeist through people like you who continue to interact with him. This is why I regretfully embrace the concept of collateral damage. I share things that spawn decent discussions. Grendel does not do that. He is intentionally trolling the community. You are right that he takes an opposite view. He does this on purpose. I know his type. There can be no leeway for people like him, especially during such a critical moment in a community's history, with so many new users joining the site. New users will see the things Grendel says, and even though they will see that he's 80% against the hubski zeitgeist, they'll think his behavior is maybe 15% permissible. So they'll maybe act in a 5%, or even only 2% way similar to him. But this error compounds and gets bigger and bigger as more users flood in. This is how Eternal September ruins communities. This is why reddit turned into a stupid parody of itself. Grendel's behavior is 100% unacceptable. I don't want to have anything to do with him. I want my social graph to keep him 7 nodes away from me, not 2. If I don't block people who follow Grendel, then Grendel is right there, lurking right outside my vision, influencing my filter bubble through you and others like you. I don't want Grendel to have any influence on my filter bubble at all. I don't want him to be a part of the community that I'm a part of. Hubski lets me tailor my community, and I am the sort of person who is willing to cut away some of the good flesh of the fruit to get rid of 100% of the rot. I am morally opposed to blocking you, but I feel it is ethically necessary unless you stop following Grendel.
First and foremost: I am not following Grendel. He was the first person to follow me on Hubski, so he held a special place in my heart... Until I saw he spent most of his time posting a shit-ton of flame bait and filling my feed up with bullshit. In any case, a lot of what you're saying is genuinely pretty scary. And this comment you made a little bit up there is fairly... Extreme, to say the least. In any case, I'm not saying you're wrong or that you don't have a point; however you sound just as consumed in hatred as Grendel does when he's having a good day. Even to the point where you're willing to throw others under the bus (who aren't even associated with him, by the way!) on account of your hatred for him. I was looking through your profile, and to be honest you seem like a sound enough fellow when you're not discussing Grendel. Honestly, if I stumbled across your profile in any other circumstance I would actually follow you (I'm struggling to learn Python, and have a passing interest in Philosophy. Currently started reading the Republic actually). In any case, if you feel you have to block people who have associated with Grendel, then by all means do your thing. However, just my 2 cents: be careful that you don't turn into the evil you're trying to stomp out. Good luck!... block people who associate with the True Guilty, such as Grendel.
... you and others like you
Am I the only one who thinks this reads like I'm part of some group of scumbags?You're not guilty by association, and I want to make a special point about this... I am morally opposed to blocking you, but I feel it is ethically necessary unless you stop following Grendel.
I'm finding it difficult to find the part where this isn't guilt by association.
Jeez, I thought I was pretty amicable bloke. I remember the discussion I had with you, but I thought it was actually fairly level-headed. I remember it heating up toward the end, but I left it before it got out of hand. Can you outline why it is that you think this is the case? I'd like to try and put the record straight with people who may have it out for me. Feel free to fire me a PM so we don't clog up people's global chatter!
I don't have it out for you. You're not blocked, muted, filtered or hushed. I just can't trust you, but since I haven't blocked you, I don't act on this lack of trust because of social pressure (aka zomgcensorship!!1!!11!!!!eleventy!!!). Ok see the thing is, I'm a woman on The Internet. (The following isn't exclusive to gender, as eightbitsamurai has pointed out about a million times in the past. It's just relevant to my experience.) The overwhelmingly common assertions are that I should stop being on The Internet if I don't like it when someone threatens my actual existence. If you flip out and I get threatened by you, the consensus is that it's my fault for participating in The Internet. Therefore, I am responsible for what other people do to me. Even if I wanted to put protections in place but was convinced to not. The only acceptable protection I am allowed, is to never participate in The Internet. This is what it's like to be on The Internet for some people. I don't make the rules. I just break them.
By that logic, wouldn't you need to mute everyone you don't already explicitly know and trust? Entirely your own decision, though, of course. If for you, Hubski is about a trusted group of peers who share your idea of what the "Zeitgeist" should be, that's entirely your prerogative. That's the beauty of everyone only being their own moderator.
Cool, then I'll follow you. This is what he does to lure the unwary. He wants to be the first impression to new users of "the typical hubski user". By being the first person to follow new users, he shapes their impression of hubski forever more. It isn't guilt by association because I'm not making any judgement about you, morally or otherwise. I don't think you've done anything deserving of punishment in your own right. You equate "ignoring someone" with "throwing them under the bus". If I block you, all I'm doing is curating my hubski experience. Hubski, like Reddit, is sort of the opposite of an RSS feed reader. Rather than opting in to get a stream of content from a bunch of different sources, we start with unfiltered everything and have to cut it down. I'm not denying you your hubski experience. I'm just choosing to not allow you to be part of mine. That's my right, and that's nothing to do with hate.First and foremost: I am not following Grendel. He was the first person to follow me on Hubski, so he held a special place in my heart... Until I saw he spent most of his time posting a shit-ton of flame bait and filling my feed up with bullshit.
He was the first person to follow me on Hubski, so he held a special place in my heart...
You're not guilty by association, and I want to make a special point about this... I am morally opposed to blocking you, but I feel it is ethically necessary unless you stop following Grendel.
I'm finding it difficult to find the part where this isn't guilt by association.
you're willing to throw others under the bus
I don't mute anyone. Actually, to be honest, unless I'm following that person or somehow otherwise notice their username, I don't even know who I'm talking to most of the time. So if someone is rude/offensive, I'll just assume that they're having a bad day and move on (I've only seen a handful of them anyway). So I let them be. If they're truly something negative, somehow, I find that Hubski does a good job of keeping them out. If it's a whole class, their posts will usually be marked with a tag that I can filter out. But I find that muting people for ideological reasons is completely against the idea of Hubski, and the people who seek an echo chamber would be better suited at Reddit/Voat/Tumblr considering the whole point and metrics of Hubski is about conversation. -30 minutes later edit- Correction: I WILL, however, filter out of my feed people who muted me because what's the point of a thread you can't reply in...
The right to comment whatever you want on anyone's post can be revoked and is not absolute. Unless they nuclear option you, you have the ability to PM them to figure out why you've been muted and attempt to rectify the real world. Just like in the real world, there are real consequences to your actions on this site. Consequences which can be mitigated and dealt by using your better judgement.
Totally. Personally, I'm not that worried about my individual situation. I don't see this person posting anything terribly interesting and I think muting is a good feature, I just wanted to know how people were generally applying it. For example if the response had generally been "I mute pretty much everything I don't agree with" that's something that might have affected my experience on Hubski significantly. The general consensus, though, seems to be that the vast, vast majority of people aren't likely to mute you just because you said something they disagree with. This makes sense and reflects what I've already seen from my use of the site.
I don't think I'd really care about someone being a complete idiot by posting junk like that. I guess I've been in too many toxic online environments to still take these things seriously. There is no way anyone here could be talking to me as a person. It's just noise. But let me qualify that a bit. If I ever felt in any way threatened of it someone was actually obviously trying to disturb my conversations... Hell yeah I'd mute them.
I haven't muted anybody, and I don't think I'll ever mute people for ideological reasons. In general, people with shitty opinions amuse me and make me feel better about myself for not holding those shitty opinions more than anything else, so there's no point in muting them to me. If I am muting someone, it's either because they're spamming links to their shitty blog or constantly insulting me. And even then, I still would be hesitant to mute someone who spams 700+ links to their website or someone who's e-stalking me because there's something attractive about browsing Hubski in its "natural" state, which is why I use global posts and global chat and mostly ignore my feed.