Thoughtful interaction means book exchange? Honestly, the system of the site, as it is right now, doesn't encourage much "thought" at all. People naturally lean towards ideas of their own, and the way the following system works, the fact that it is incredibly easy, not only to not see what someone else says, but to ensure they cannot comment on your post, censoring them from the larger audience, encourages everyone to rabidly ensure that they say nothing at all which could result in being muted. The submissions are nearly all shitty link posts, and the only real comments that get discussion are ones where the topics are "pubski' or similar, clearly showing that this site is more a "hangout" for a select group of people who like each other than a site on which ideas can appear, and be truly discussed in full. Maybe if "thoughtful" means "friendly" I can see your goal, but as it is, this site is little improved over something like facebook in it's early days. A gathering place for well-educated, tech-oriented people. Nothing baked into hubski encourages thoughtful discussion. Thoughtful discussion requires a much more complex system that allows users to have open and honest discussion, it requires a system where mob-groups or users with a ton of followers do not have disproportional control over what is seen by the site. This site is not that.I have a long-term vision for Hubski. That vision is centered upon the conviction that thoughtful interaction is something valuable for a significant amount of people, and that facilitating that interaction results in interesting things.
You aren't the first to have this criticism. I don't suspect that I can persuade you that you are wrong, but my reasoning behind the functionality here is largely inspired by interactions IRL. That is, the people that I engage with in are those I tend to get along with, and those that I continue to seek to associate with. The people that I engage IRL don't share all of my views, but we almost always have an overlap of one or more sort of interest, aesthetic, or opinion. Although I think it's a noble ideal, I haven't found people that remain associates IRL that have nothing in common beyond the desire to discuss things. Also, when I don't enjoy someone's company, or if they are rude or dismissive, I don't interact with them. I'm not saying that what happens here is the only kind of valuable interaction on the internet. But in order to have the types of discussions that we do have, options akin to those you have IRL are necessary. It might be an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact. It is a trade off, and it does come with limitations. Trust me, I'd love to have our cake and eat it too; we have tried. I do wish that people would use these mute less than they do. You and I have disagreed in the past, and I have never felt the need to mute you. Doing so wouldn't enhance my experience. It would make it worse.
Not to say those things are bad, they are awesome, community-building ideas. They just aren't exactly in line with that goal of "thoughtful" discussion. However, most of my interactions with people IRL tend to lean towards the inability to really say anything without fear of losing friends or being disliked. Then again, I'm not the most socially functional of people. It is unlikely that a person will remain friends with someone who persistently and consistently challenges their ideas. Any site that encourages the muting of people will encourage the formation of a community based on muting those you don't like, and "liking" someone is almost certainly correlated to "agrees with me in some way". Perhaps you can get variations on the same theme, but true, wold-subversive, disagreement creates strife, can cause anger, and will be silenced. Perhaps, in that way, a person can make hubski what they want from it.I don't suspect that I can persuade you that you are wrong, but my reasoning behind the functionality here is largely inspired by interactions IRL.
Although I think it's a noble ideal, I haven't found people that remain associates IRL that have nothing in common beyond the desire to discuss things.
You and I have disagreed in the past, and I have never felt the need to mute you. Doing so wouldn't enhance my experience. It would make it worse.
Certainly. "Thoughtful", no matter how defined, is a function of the users. To me it means something very different from the majority of contributors here, but I suppose it's neither my nor anyone's place to say what is or is not, since we're quibbling over definitions. I think most active contributors here use "thoughtful" in the sense my wife or mother would use it vis-a-vis, say, a thoughtful act. That's fine, IMO, but not something I'm keen to jump into most often. You're correct in that no matter what features and functions exist, the timbre of the site is dictated by the culture that has evolved (and continues to). I'm not sure one could design a mechanism (or if it would be desirable) that encourages a specific cultural bent.They just aren't exactly in line with that goal of "thoughtful" discussion.
It is my hope, but unless a significant portion of the people here consciously restrain themselves from muting as a result of disagreeable exchanges, then it might be overshadowed by the lesser angels of our nature. I actually considered the idea that a user could set a time out for their muting, filtering, etc., something like: However, after a point, these efforts border on absurd, and IMHO give the impression that the site can solve problems that people cannot.Perhaps, in that way, a person can make hubski what they want from it.
1 week, 1 month, 1 year, forever
I don't often mute or block users on this site unless they're spammers, so most of my experience with curating content comes from unfollowing people on my Facebook feed. One thing I thought was a rare good idea on Facebook's part was a suggestion to reconnect with unfollowed users. It was non-intrusive, but served as a reminder that I'd drastically altered the content of the website. I thought this might be worth reconsidering, so I re-followed all of those users. And while I ended up unfollowing almost all of them again within a week, I've left a couple of them in my feed--mostly people I'd disagreed with to the point I became annoyed with their posts. I've realized that it's good to have their opinions in my feed because it gives me a real sense of who the people around me are, even if some of their opinions are absurd. It's difficult to notice where the line is between removing offensive or worthless content, and constructing a personal echo-chamber of non-objectionable content in order to make yourself feel comfortable and validated. But while I don't think the latter is something that's inherently bad, a subtle reminder of how much you're altering the flow of information might be a good thing. Maybe a subtle (2) in the bottom corner of a given post or comment to show that two child comments have been filtered out. For users who never really considered the extent of their filter, it could provide an opportunity to reflect on that, and possibly reintroduce some objectionable content into their feed. For everyone else, it could be a reminder to thank the mods for providing them them tools to prevent ignorant commenters from raising their blood pressure.
It's an interesting idea. However, it could only be applied for posts as filter only removes posts from a certain tag, person, or domain from your feed. Mute prevents someone from commenting on your own posts, but doesn't filter the person's comments anywhere else.Maybe a subtle (2) in the bottom corner of a given post or comment to show that two child comments have been filtered out.
the internet is the only place in the world where people think shitting in the soup is a right that should be protected
neutral. see what you mean, but what the hell does anymore? it encourages conversations. agree 30%. but in my experience the people who get muted in practice are just jerks/tone deaf, not, like, eccentrics with ideas too bold for the common forum. disagree - submissions fall in a few categories 1. easy to find link posts atlantic, wapo et al 2. personal tellhubski stuff 3. spam/crap 4. the very rare incredible finds from websites i would never see otherwise disagree agree 50% agree... some amount. but who is to blame? not the medium, the people/culture, surely. or at least not the medium completely. at that point it's tautological. neutral. this is not hubski, never will be, but also you clearly enjoy it somewhat or you wouldn't be here. i'm not sure what you describe is really possible. anyway, refugee's response is kind of embarrassing, or more so the fact that it'll end up with eight dots in a while.Honestly, the system of the site, as it is right now, doesn't encourage much "thought" at all.
People naturally lean towards ideas of their own, and the way the following system works, the fact that it is incredibly easy, not only to not see what someone else says, but to ensure they cannot comment on your post, censoring them from the larger audience, encourages everyone to rabidly ensure that they say nothing at all which could result in being muted.
The submissions are nearly all shitty link posts
and the only real comments that get discussion are ones where the topics are "pubski' or similar
clearly showing that this site is more a "hangout" for a select group of people who like each other than a site on which ideas can appear, and be truly discussed in full.
Maybe if "thoughtful" means "friendly" I can see your goal, but as it is, this site is little improved over something like facebook in it's early days. A gathering place for well-educated, tech-oriented people. Nothing baked into hubski encourages thoughtful discussion.
Thoughtful discussion requires a much more complex system that allows users to have open and honest discussion, it requires a system where mob-groups or users with a ton of followers do not have disproportional control over what is seen by the site. This site is not that.
shrug when the original post basically states "yes there are some people who Hubski isn't going to be right for" and then someone is like "blah blah I think you're wrong about hubski" frankly engaging any further seems kind of pointless. Some people aren't going to like everything. The post said that. And then some person came along and said they didn't like everything. Like, what a huge shocker and valuable insight that something already predicted happened!
isn't the post about what hubski could do better? in general, he is somewhat correct (i gave percentages!). in specifics, he is lacking. for the record although i agree with some of his criticisms i do not think there is much hubski could do better. except formatting. its failings are failings of the internet in general. but as mk's implied goal is to be better than the rest of the internet, never hurts to put the thinking cap on.
The biggest shit shows I've seen on the Internet are the ones that lack strong moderation by either admins or users. No contest. If you want thoughtful discussion you aren't getting it sans opinionated moderation. And if your goal truly is thoughtful conversation, you should be able to challenge even your greatest "opponent" tactfully without getting muted. If not, that probably wasn't your primary goal tbh.
I'm not sure that I agree that Hubski doesn't provide thoughtful insight. I don't often discuss thing with other people on here, but it isn't to say I haven't absorbed opinions. I think in this case "thoughtful" works in two ways. 1. absorbed in or involving thought. 2. showing consideration for the needs of other people. Its about thinking for sure, but it is also about caring and respecting those who you are having the discussion with. I don't know many of these people personally, but I think I have definitely gained some respect for them as people. I think that has some importance, and I think that's why mk uses "thoughtful"Maybe if "thoughtful" means "friendly" I can see your goal, but as it is, this site is little improved over something like facebook in it's early days. A gathering place for well-educated, tech-oriented people. Nothing baked into hubski encourages thoughtful discussion.
That just sounds like sour grapes. Hubski is a community and communities evolve around cores of belief and interest. I think mk's statement about not serving the widest possible audience is tied to a goal of keeping the community aspect of the website. If you want to go rouse rabble stay on reddit and see how thoughtful that conversation goes while we quietly discuss whatever we discuss here.
It depends more on the various features of the system to attract interesting people. The individual humans have to come up with the thoughts in accordance with 1) their motivation and desire to discourse with others 2) how strongly they feel about an issue 3) the time available to compose and communicate thoughts along with necessary proofs 4) the rewards they get from their participation. Interesting informed people are probably also busy people who don't have a lot of time to compose thoughtful discussions. There are many many conversations that provide satisfaction, information, connection, and/or thoughtfulness to the participants.Honestly, the system of the site, as it is right now, doesn't encourage much "thought" at all.
A "system" is only a system. What can systems do to encourage or discourage thoughtfulness?