a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by War
War  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: I disagree with the mute feature

I worded that really wrong on my phone I just meant that they would end up silencing everyone. I understand how that sounds totally ridiculous.





bioemerl  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

mk  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

bioemerl  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    In the end I think it best to leave it to people to decide what they want to engage in

Except when you mute others you don't decide what you want to engage in, you decide what others are allowed to do, and that isn't right.

user-inactivated  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    you decide what others are allowed to do

No, you don't. Filtering your input doesn't prevent others from outputting.

bioemerl  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

muting literally prevents you from commenting on any of that person's threads, even if you have already commented. It's an instant "you can't respond anymore but I get to say anything I like" button.

thenewgreen  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

kleinbl00  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

wasoxygen  ·  2921 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

bioemerl  ·  2922 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    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.

oyster  ·  2922 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Your system shouldn't rely on choice.

Why not ? We are adults who are perfectly capable of self moderating our own posts. Furthermore the mutee isn't being silenced, they are choosing not to create a post of their own showcasing what they think.

bioemerl  ·  2922 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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".

oyster  ·  2922 days ago  ·  link  ·  

No it's really a lot less dramatic than that. What makes hubski great is that the majority of people are capable of self moderating. If that's to much for some people there are plenty of other sites where somebody else does the moderating for them.

user-inactivated  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Tell me, then: in what situation that is acceptably possible would responding to what you disagree with be so important as to render the benefits of muting too light?

bioemerl  ·  2922 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I do not understand this sentence at all.

user-inactivated  ·  2922 days ago  ·  link  ·  

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.

bioemerl  ·  2922 days ago  ·  link  ·  

No, I could not figure out what exactly you meant. Normally I can understand some of the meaning behind a sentence, and get a meaningful reply, but I do not understand your sentence above at all.

user-inactivated  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Group-think, hivemind, and so on, are highly enforced by the mute feature.

Reddit has no mute options. Reddit has become famous for its group-think. Elaborate on those for me, would you.

oyster  ·  2923 days ago  ·  link  ·  

How so ? Does it stop that person from making a post about their own opinion/side ? Like I actually don't know, I've only got a vague understanding of it.