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.