It allows people to dishonestly stop people from attempting to refute them.
If they want to ignore certain people there's no way that can be stopped on a board with identities but they shouldn't be allowed to affect other people's view.
@mk
More and better criticisms than yours have been made, and made, and made again. Lurk more.
You comment infrequently. Has it affected you?
It has been debated quite a bit, however we have been using it for years, and IMO the result has been positive in the balance. People simply must be polite, or as IRL, they are avoided. Yes, it can be abused, but the result of muting too much is self-inflicted isolation. It's not perfect, but there is no perfect moderation solution.
- People simply must be polite, or as IRL, they are avoided.
You can avoid people without using the mute feature though.
EDIT: Not on this site as I have later found out
Also, muting people isn't just avoiding them, it's more akin to putting tape over their mouths so other people can't hear them speak.
How does it stop you from making a post with your opinion ? It doesn't. You could share your view if you wanted but you obviously don't even want to if you won't just make a post about your POV. This is like a group of people at a party who are having a conversation and ignoring you. People who will be rolling their eyes pretty hard if you accuse them of putting tape over your mouth.
- How does it stop you from making a post with your opinion ? It doesn't.
No, but it stops the comment being organised in a tree with all the others which would be kinda disruptive.
- This is like a group of people at a party who are having a conversation and ignoring you.
No, it's more like a group of wizards/witches at a party who are having a conversation and have me under a magic spell so I can't say anything in response to what they say even to a different person.
The filter feature would be like what you describe.
EDIT: Actually, that's not what the filter on Hubski does. I was wrong.
Actually 4chan has had some issues with free speech and 8chan was created as a "true free speech" alternative. If you thought 4chan looked bad wait until you see 8chan.
- As an example of what I mean: the most free speech place I know is 4chan, and it also isn't very high on the list of websites I like to spend my time on, because it's full of assholes.
Is it really an example, though? Free speech doesn't mean "I say what I can", it means "I can say what I want".
- I think if you have a community where people can say whatever they want with no repercussions, the people who say the most extreme and ridiculous things will push away everyone else.
Hubski is no 4chan, though. What do you think about echo-chambering - the kind where everyone mutes you and you end up only talking to the like-minded people? Would that encourage or discourage unacceptable views within the community?
There is an organic nature to Hubski in a way. There is no moderation, so griefing or excessive derailing could become an issue which is solved with the mute. Those who mute others with the intention of silencing their opinion over time should find less and less voices that share their opinion. That's what I believe happens in most circumstances.
Even then, that is unlikely. The important factor is not silencing those you disagree with on one point, but silencing those who have a generally different viewpoint or worldview.
Group-think, hivemind, and so on, are highly enforced by the mute feature.
- Group-think, hivemind, and so on, are highly enforced by the mute feature.
It's difficult to balance civility and open discussion. I don't use mute for opinions. That would be a failing on my part. But I won't suffer hostility or trolling. In the end I think it best to leave it to people to decide what they want to engage in. People are imperfect, so every moderation approach will have drawbacks.
why would you want to comment on or have a dialog with someone that clearly doesn't want to have one with you? I just don't get it.
Also, there have been situations where someone was muted and took the initiative to reach out to that person via a third-party and was un-muted. So it's not as if it's impossible to reverse.
Also, the idea that someone might continue saying vitriolic things about you and you can't respond is something that could happen, but guess what? The rest of us who come here for thoughtful dialogue are not likely to want to follow any person doing such things. Hubski isn't the place for this. This is evidenced by the fact that over the past 5 years there have been one maybe two instances of such a thing.
I have never muted someone because I didn't like their opinion, but I have muted a number of people because they were either overt spammers or complete assholes.
I have also been muted by people, and I could not have cared less.
About to embark on a pretty busy day, Easter and all with kids, so don't see my lack of reply as anything personal.
- why would you want to comment on or have a dialog with someone that clearly doesn't want to have one with you? I just don't get it.
HERE'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HUBSKI AND EVERY OTHER FORUM ON THE INTERNET
Because of the dynamics generated when User A can prevent User B from replying directly to them, the conversation between A and B has to be agreeable to both parties. User B cannot ride A's back to score points for the entertainment of C D and E.
The fundamental dynamic on Reddit, Voat and anywhere else with gamified conversation is "look at this fool and delight as I dismantle him for your entertainment." It doesn't mean you have to be right, it means you have to have the numbers. If you don't want to be annihilated by a million monolithic morons you'd best toe the line or shut the fuck up.
The fundamental dynamic on Hubski is "we can only have this conversation for as long as we both enjoy it." It absolutely leads to echo chambers if otherwise un-nourished; we've seen time and time again that these communities die out into streams of inactivateds and names you don't recognize because circlejerks aren't nourishing and without any other kind of conversation, people stop. So the areas that flourish are the ones where people can discuss things cordially - the places where not only is there a conversation with two sides, those two sides have incentive to constructively add, rather than destructively tear apart.
Which means you can't play to the audience nearly as much as you can elsewhere. You also have to play to the opponent.
And the average Reddit refugee sucks at that.
And brings up their freeze peaches when they realize that they have to adapt.
- why would you want to comment on or have a dialog with someone that clearly doesn't want to have one with you? I just don't get it.
I wander from group to group at the party, enjoying conversation with friends. Then, at one random group, I can't talk, because the individual who happened to open that conversation doesn't want to hear from me.
You replied to bioemerl, and now I am replying to you. None of our moderation settings have much effect here; we are subject to Bypel's preferences, because Bypel created the post. Unless you restrict yourself to commenting only on your own posts, your moderation settings are mostly ignored.
- I have also been muted by people, and I could not have cared less.
This suggests that you have never been muted by anyone who creates posts that attract dialog among people you enjoy interacting with.
Most users don't mute spammers (I don't), yet I encounter very little spam. I think you overestimate the usefulness of muting, and possibly underestimate the disadvantages, because they haven't affected you.
- why would you want to comment on or have a dialog with someone that clearly doesn't want to have one with you?
Because dialog happens with more then two people, and like what mr kevinbl00 proves by commenting here is that conversation between two parties who "can't get along" is a useful and valuable thing to have.
Lets take a moment to remember that the comment below only exists because of my refusal to mute people. I, meanwhile, am unable to respond to this person because they have me muted.
Is the comment below valuable, useful, and an overall positive thing to have in the community? Absolutely.
Would my response be, if I were able to make one? I certainly hope so.
By muting you remove that potential, and any time two people disagree in a way that is not reconcilable hubski will only serve to have those two parties mute and ignore each other, rather than discussing and coming to any form of understanding.
"But people did it in the past" is an anecdote and a useless one at that. You have no knowledge of how many useful comments, of how many great points have been silenced thanks to this mute future. You only see the "people who learn to get along" which is not going to be the trend, if my experience with human interactions is anything to go by.
- I have never muted someone because I didn't like their opinion, but I have muted a number of people because they were either overt spammers or complete assholes.
Your system shouldn't rely on choice.
Why not? See the post you are responding to.
And the mutee is absolutely being silenced, they are prevented from responding to all posts of which the person who muted them makes. Their points aren't silenced in general, of course, but that's like arguing "yeah, I punched you in the face, but I didn't kill you".
No. I think you're just being defensively dismissive, with the extended "do not" and the emphasizing "at all". I think you're wrong, but I see no point in continuing a discussion with someone who's not willing to listen. Welcome to what you preach so hard against.
Well, until (and if it will happen) Hubski gets the other kind of filter system I'll be using the mute feature.
Who knows, maybe I'll see the advantages of this system and start to like it better.
I think first you need to let go of the idea that anything you say on the internet will affect anybodies view. If somebody legitimately wants to share their point of view then that's great, but don't go out with the intention of changing anybodies mind.
So what does somebody do when they want to simply share a point of view ? They make a post. Make a post about what you want to say and maybe some people will absorb it.
- It's not dishonest, it's a clear signal that your opinion isn't wanted.
An opinion or belief not being wanted does not imply it's a bad opinion or belief.
If one sees an objective belief that they disagree with then I think they should try to refute it not censor it or it's dishonest.
If one sees a subjective opinion they disagree with then I think they should just leave it or debate it if they feel like it not censor it or it's dishonest.
It doesn't matter if the opinion/belief is offensive or not. An offensive opinion/belief is just as likely to be true as a non-offensive one.