I can comment in this thread, but no one will see it. I've never interacted with the submitter in any way, but they have me on mute. Due to this feature, I'm shut out of a conversation that's likely unrelated to the one that led them to mute me. By being first to submit it, they have the power to decide who can and can't discuss it.
Does this bother anyone else? We shouldn't have to worry about how our (hopefully) civil disagreements might lead us to be shut out of unrelated conversations.
edit: It looks like they unmuted me, but the problem remains.
You're not the only one to have an issue with that particular "feature". I actually have a very low opinion of hubski specifically because of that feature. There's curating your own experience, and then there's curating others' experience and that's where it crosses the line. It allows people to 'win' arguments by replying to the person and then muting them so they cannot reply back (and I cannot think of a specific time where someone didn't reply to me and then mute). If the person wants to ignore someone, that's completely fair, but the downside should be the person being muted having the ability to make their last point. Fair is fair, and just because someone doesn't want to have any interactions with the other person doesn't mean the other person doesn't have anything useful to say, or that others wouldn't find it useful as well. It also negatively detracts from actual discussions. When someone can completely shut the other person out of the conversation because they don't like their opinion, or the way they choose to express themselves, it means the people in the discussions either have to trust the other person or tiptoe around constantly (or just not engage in specific types of discussions). There will be those on this site who will claim otherwise, but nothing I've seen here has really been any more meaningful than the sorts of discussions I find on reddit (and in many ways, much less meaningful). Here's my opinion on the matter. I've been on reddit for over 6 years, I've gotten to watch it grow. There was a period in Reddit's history where a lot of the 'old hands' would constantly complain about the newer users for 'dumbing down' reddit by abusing up/downvotes (upvoting cat pics, downvoting "actual discussion", that sort of thing). But because reddit is a completely level playing field, these old hands lost. The community as a whole wanted content that ran the gamut, from cat pics, to deep discussions of type theory (and this is what you'll find on reddit, an extremely wide array of content). Hubski's design was borne out of this 'fight', it's why Hubski's overall design goal was to get rid of the up/downvote mechanism. The 'old timers' have more power on this site by design for that very reason because giving people more personal power was one of the goals, and say what you want about up/downvotes, it levels the playing field with respect to the visibility of content since everyone gets a single vote. And you can really see that attitude in the culture on this site too. Being called a redditor isn't a compliment, for example. I've had people attack me for linking to an appropriate meme that described my feelings on the matter as well. Basically, anything that was previously considered to be a part of the aforementioned 'reddit dumbing down' is really frowned upon in the hubski culture. The anti-reddit sentiment is so strong on this site, that the last 'influx of redditors' was met with a suggestion to be able to auto-ignore every account that was less than X days old, and it was seriously considered by the admins (I have no idea if they went forward with it or not). It was specifically a move against redditors. There are a lot of people who won't like to see it characterized in this manner, but lets call a horse a horse. And the worst part is that the discussion is better on reddit anyway, but I'm sure that's just opinion as well.
If we had an anti-reedit sentiment here, we would be a self-loathing group as the many of the users here hail from there -some of my personal favorites. AND many of the users here actively use both sites, and why wouldn't they? Both sites have their own virtues. It's not a competition. I think you've made it clear where you'd rather spend your time. In fact, I recall you mentioning in a comment that you would no longer be on Hubski, yet you return. Why is that? Do you secretly dig it here?It allows people to 'win' arguments by replying to the person and then muting them so they cannot reply back
This is a valid point, it's something we should consider. There will be those on this site who will claim otherwise, but nothing I've seen here has really been any more meaningful than the sorts of discussions I find on reddit (and in many ways, much less meaningful).
-Hubski is not Reddit. We do not want to be Reddit. Reddit is Reddit and they're damn good at being Reddit. I have a high opinion of what Reddit has accomplished. I very much enjoy their AMA's and other aspects of the site and there are certainly places where great conversations occur, all the time. The 'old timers' have more power on this site by design for that very reason
-A good idea is a good idea and much of the functionality of Hubski has come from new users making suggestions. Old user/New User it's a pretty level playing field. the last 'influx of redditors' was met with a suggestion to be able to auto-ignore every account that was less than X days old, and it was seriously considered by the admins (I have no idea if they went forward with it or not).
-We have not implemented this. That said, the idea has ZERO to do with reddit and everything to do with new users having the same questions about the site each time we have an influx. By the way, the largest influx we've had wasn't from reddit, I believe it was a Hacker News post or perhaps an article from the Daily Dot. Either way, the questions are relatively the same regardless of where the people are coming from. The suggestion wasn't to ignore "redditors" it was to ignore the redundant questions that inevitably come with a new influx of users. It's a valid suggestion and worth consideration. And the worst part is that the discussion is better on reddit anyway, but I'm sure that's just opinion as well.
I can't speak for anyone but me, but I see a huge part of "internet culture" as revolving around "winning" arguments and I think that using a faceless interface to get the thrills of confrontation and victory are pretty sad. Pretty fucking sad. But, if people on hubski want to do that, cool. But I sure as hell appreciate the ability to mute someone or to ignore them. Not "filter". Ignore. I realize that I am probably in the minority, but I hope that the mute feature will stay the same. I don't generally get into arguments with people on hubski and I don't really care to. However, there are a growing number of voices I don't care to hear. They might be ok, but as in real life I'd like the discretion to make that decision on my own time. Edit: Aw shucks, one less follower.It allows people to 'win' arguments by replying to the person and then muting them so they cannot reply back
As it is, I'm off to record music. Huzzah!I realize that I am probably in the minority, but I hope that the mute feature will stay the same.
-I don't think you are in the minority. But I do think some interesting ideas have emerged from this thread that we will consider moving forward. The "shades of ignore" concept that ButterflyEffect mentioned, as well as your Thunderdome idea are both up there. In fact, I found myself having to excuse myself from the site for a bit in lieu of taking the Thunderdome approach.
I find myself agreeing with you. I think mute should stick around because just as anyone is entitled to saying whatever they want to whoever they want, people are just as entitled to not wanting to have to hear what you want to say. Edit: I don't know why I said "I find myself agreeing with you." That's a weird way of saying that. Whatever, haha.
It's a bit of a strawman to imply that's the issue people are having with the mute feature. It isn't. I think all of us would agree that if you don't want people to be a part of your experience, then you can do so. but actively disallowing them from responding to a comment of yours is not simply muting. Hubski could simply hide it from you and let everyone else see it so the conversation can continue and you don't have to have them in your face. That is the point of contention, not whether or not someone should be allowed to mute, but whether or not mute should prevent someone from having their opinion heard by anyone.
Because you're a proper young gent when you feel like it, that's why! But yes, that is a nice way of rephrasing my feelings on the matter. If we have tools for social interaction online similar to the tools we use to interact in real life, perhaps we may be civil to each other online, as we are in real life, no?Edit: I don't know why I said "I find myself agreeing with you." That's a weird way of saying that. Whatever, haha.
Whoa wait a minute. After seeing both of yours, and kbs comments, I had an idea. What if we had both. What if we had mute, but also an "ignore comments" feature? That way if I'm leaning more towards indifference I could just not see their comment, but if I'm in a situation with say, a certain someone, I don't want them commenting on my stuff at all and then bam. Both worlds. Though I guess the only way to avoid people complaining is to eliminate mute, since going through a 3rd party to initially communicate is rarely going to be the first thing that comes to a persons mind for resolving the issue.
I don't know how hard "shades of ignore/mute" would be to implement, but it might be something to play around with. Or what if we just had a #thunderdome where people could duke it out and not have their shit bleed all over the site?
wait I had an even better idea we just get rid of commenting altogether
You have every right to completely shut someone out of your experience on Hubski, if you think those are the arguments people like me are making, you're misunderstanding us. You shouldn't have the right to disallow others to join in a conversation, which is the aspect of the mute functionality that's being called into question.
My first thought is, maybe you can't mute someone for a specific amount of time after you've replied to them? So say I diss you because the Beatles suck, then I want to bar the door by muting you. I get some pop-up or whatever that's like "Yo, you just commented about how much the Beatles suck, you have to wait a bit before you can mute that dude." Thoughts?It allows people to 'win' arguments by replying to the person and then muting them so they cannot reply back
This is a valid point, it's something we should consider.
When you start claiming to be a 'community for thoughtful conversations' you immediately start competing with reddit. How you choose to characterize that competition doesn't change that. And reddit tends to have better conversations than Hubski because of the level playing field.
This has nothing to do with my point. We're talking about the creation and distribution of content, and being 'an old hand' on this site automatically means you're going to be more successful with both. On Reddit everyone gets a single vote to help decide if content should stay or go. Two completely different ideas and I'm astounded that you've conflated the two in your response to me.
Not true. The idea was originally put forth by Klein as a reaction to the reddit influx that resulted when reddit changed the way they displayed up/downvotes. I don't personally care where the 'biggest influx' comes from, I know what prompted klein to make the suggestion. I have personally had the term 'redditor' spit at me a few times. Or was this my imagination? It's implied that people who dislike reddit have been on reddit in the past, and in fact, most of the point I made in my original response is predicated on the fact that a very large portion of the Hubski's population originally hailed from reddit (including the founders). Another one, that's 2 for 1 (see https://hubski.com/pub?id=166271). Strange how a site so big on discourse seems to have one of the admins falling into the trap of attacking someone for being open about their opinions of the site. You fix the muting issue, and you'll see me being a lot more positive towards this site.-Hubski is not Reddit. We do not want to be Reddit. Reddit is Reddit and they're damn good at being Reddit. I have a high opinion of what Reddit has accomplished. I very much enjoy their AMA's and other aspects of the site and there are certainly places where great conversations occur, all the time.
-A good idea is a good idea and much of the functionality of Hubski has come from new users making suggestions. Old user/New User it's a pretty level playing field.
That said, the idea has ZERO to do with reddit and everything to do with new users having the same questions about the site each time we have an influx.
If we had an anti-reedit sentiment here, we would be a self-loathing group as the many of the users here hail from there -some of my personal favorites. AND many of the users here actively use both sites, and why wouldn't they? Both sites have their own virtues. It's not a competition.
I think you've made it clear where you'd rather spend your time. In fact, I recall you mentioning in a comment that you would no longer be on Hubski, yet you return. Why is that? Do you secretly dig it here?
Strange how a site so big on discourse seems to have one of the admins falling into the trap of attacking someone for being open about their opinions of the site.
where did I attack you?
Look, man. TNG is too nice to attack people, but I'm really not, and I'm reeeeeally sick of seeing these comments pop up all the time. If you don't like the way things are run, actively involve yourself by making suggestions for making it better or not. Not this "I have a low opinion of the site" and "it's not as good as reddit" bullshit. If you don't like it here, don't be here. We like it here, and I don't see anything of value lost from people who's seemingly main purpose of being on this site is to complain about it leaving. I value the opinions of the people here and what they have to say, I don't mute people who express their opinions, but I would for spammers and straight up assholes.
Not a chance in hell. Because you aren't constructive in them. You're just a dick about it. There's no real suggestions, just complaining. I just went through your entire 28 day history of shitposting. Racism, sexism, bigotry, intentionally missing the point and making everything about you. I don't associate with garbage that makes safe places like we have here less secure, even when your intention is clearly to get a rise out of people. People like you are the reason why there isn't enough representation across the web, because you're the kind of asshole that makes it impossible for them to do it. When I made my previous comment, I knew you were an ass already, but I assumed you were at least someone to be responded to with some respect, perhaps a level of having you stay on the site if you understood how we went about things, but now, I don't give a shit. I don't want your kind around here in the first place, but when you've clearly gone on a tear for a month and have angered my friends and made them uncomfortable, I no longer will tolerate it. You're officially the first person I will mute after this conversation has run its course.
And therein lies the real danger of the mute feature. It's not really about whether or not I've made constructive suggestions to this site, it's about whether or not your friends find my comments uncomfortable. And this should be the litmus test for whether or not I even get to join in on a conversation. Here, let me be an asshole now. Folks like you are the reason atrocities happen. The fundamental lack of fairness to people that are different than yourself. now I'm truly terrible, but, say what you will, I have made many suggestions for changes that would make this site more in-line with what I expect from it. As you learned when you read through my history, that is definitely not an accusation that can be leveled at me unless you're ignorant.and have angered my friends and made them uncomfortable, I no longer will tolerate it.
Yes it is. That's how communities work. I've never seen you before this thread, but from the way TNG, Meriadoc and 8bit react to you, I'm reasonably sure you're an asshole. I'm not going to mute you, because if our paths haven't crossed so far they probably won't again, but I'm not interested in engaging with you either.And this should be the litmus test for whether or not I even get to join in on a conversation.
That's not how online communities work. I'm a terrible person, you can tell because 3 people disliked my opinion. You should definitely continue making decisions in that manner, I'm sure it'll treat you well.but from the way TNG, Meriadoc and 8bit react to you, I'm reasonably sure you're an asshole.
Three people that bfv knows, trusts, and has interacted with over a great deal of time. You know, in meatspace, I think they call them "friends." If three of your friends who you trusted told you someone was a dick, would you assume they were probably a dick? You wouldn't avoid them, but you wouldn't seek them out and maybe you would approach them with caution? If you say no, then why are you friends with people whose opinions you don't trust?
It's an online community on a public forum for content aggregation. Perhaps the problem is that some of you are having difficulty emotionally keeping your distance so instead you feel that you should have the right to form cliques and try as hard as you can to ruin someone elses experience of the site. I can't stop you from being so petty, but I can have a low opinion of you for your willingness to do so.
hey guess what...the internet doesn't operate in a vacuum!!! behind these usernames are real live people!!! with real live feelings!!! who crave real live interactions!!! and you're disrupting that. you're the kid in the sandbox who throws sand in everyone's eyes and wonders why no one wants to hang out with you. you think badly of our community. so leave.
HAHAHAHAHA Dude, what fucking subreddits do you lurk? No, I want to know, because I'm seriously subscribed to about 75 including ones that are specifically for thought-provoking discussion and articles, like r/trueaskreddit, r/depthhub, r/metareddit, and so on. You know the two subreddits I honestly find the most interesting discussion? r/fitness and r/relationships. And it is not thought-provoking.When you start claiming to be a 'community for thoughtful conversations' you immediately start competing with reddit
And reddit tends to have better conversations than Hubski because of the level playing field
Just so we're clear: I have you muted to make you feel unwelcome. I'm not the slightest bit interested in winning arguments with you - you suck at argument. I'm not the slightest bit interested in hearing your opinions - they're ill-informed and poorly considered. Mute is useful to me because I want you to leave. People who think they can "win" an argument by posting memes are not a nutritious part of my balanced breakfast.
Thank you for illustrating my point. For anyone who thinks my analysis of the 'old hand' vs the new is off, consider that klein has specifically stated he likes the mute function because it helps to push people away from the site that he personally doesn't like. Not to curate his own experience, but specifically to try and use as much power as he is able on this site to get me to leave. This is exactly my point. Thank you Klein.
You apparently didn't understand my point, so I'll spell it out in case anyone else missed it. The mute feature has the potential to be abused, and you are abusing it. Whether you're entitled or not, the argument is that the mute functionality needs to change, and you've given a concrete example as to why it needs to change. I do not believe the admins ever meant the feature to be used to bully people.
Oooooooooooor it could be the fact that Hubski is built upon having conversations. With people. We're all people here and sending a meme is a quick, no effort way of describing...anything. It's not conductive to discussion, and it's not conductive to the branding of Hubski as "a thoughtful web". So, yes, you're right and that's because the intent of the site is to be a place to avoid dumbed down discussion. The entire time you've been on this site you've been saying that Reddit is better, or that you don't like x, y, and z about Hubski, or that you're leaving, etc. Seriously, if you like Reddit so much better and you're being attacked so often here, why don't you just actually leave? On that hand though, we could take a look at your interactions with other people on this site and see that almost none of them have been positive. Anyway, I've tried to avoid responding to you in any manner but I seem to have failed after reading yet another fistful of paragraphs about your disdain for this place. At least other people were offering suggestions (as of me typing this).And you can really see that attitude in the culture on this site too. Being called a redditor isn't a compliment, for example. I've had people attack me for linking to an appropriate meme that described my feelings on the matter as well. Basically, anything that was previously considered to be a part of the aforementioned 'reddit dumbing down' is really frowned upon in the hubski culture.
And the worst part is that the discussion is better on reddit anyway, but I'm sure that's just opinion as well.
Man, this is the umpteenth negative interaction I've seen with this fella. Can only assume at this point that he enjoys this sort of thing. Which means that there's nowhere to go here but down. Can we all agree to just not engage? Can't really see any other potential for positive outcome...
Thank you ButterlyEffect, for exactly illustrating the problem. I also use emoticons when conversing via IM because it's a quick and easy way for me to communicate an idea or a feeling, yet I suspect you aren't going to start railing against the use of emoticons. Which goes back to my original point about the anti-reddit sentiment on this site and how anything that's viewed as a part of the 'problem' with reddit is extremely frowned upon here. I had briefly considered telling the OP that I was inevitably going to get someone to question why I hadn't left yet, but much like quantum physics, I felt that making the observation would probably prevent it from happening. So instead I decided to wait and see how long it took. The answer was roughly 8 minutes. But don't worry, you're not the first, and you won't be the last. This must be that superior discourse you're so interested in ;)
https://hubski.com/pub?id=163091 Besides which, are we here for discussions or positivity? That's part of the problem ;)Oooooooooooor it could be the fact that Hubski is built upon having conversations. With people. We're all people here and sending a meme is a quick, no effort way of describing...anything. It's not conductive to discussion, and it's not conductive to the branding of Hubski as "a thoughtful web". So, yes, you're right and that's because the intent of the site is to be a place to avoid dumbed down discussion.
he entire time you've been on this site you've been saying that Reddit is better, or that you don't like x, y, and z about Hubski, or that you're leaving, etc. Seriously, if you like Reddit so much better and you're being attacked so often here, why don't you just actually leave?
On that hand though, we could take a look at your interactions with other people on this site and see that almost none of them have been positive.
You linked the post I openly thanked you for helping me out with some VPS issues. I mean we WERE having a discussion about it and thanking you like that seemed the best way to do it. Of course I'm just one person, and a new (month old?) user like you are. I wonder how much shit I'm going to get for basically agreeing you with mreiland.
EDIT: Furthermore you linked to a POSITIVE discussion. I know that's almost irrelevant but I had to check to see what I was replying to. Turns out it was from swedishbadgergirl.
yeah, there's been a lot of talk about how absolutely nothing positive comes out of any discussion I have because a lot of my opinions aren't liked, I was just pointing out that I've had some positive interactions with people. In fact, I've not openly attacked anyone on this site, it's not my style, but I've had a hell of a lot of people attack me and my character, and still I do not respond in kind. I'm just blunt about my opinion.
Reddit is better if you have the right tools and options enabled. I have RES with child comments hidden by default. It turns out the top level stuff is almost universally good, even in big default sub threads. It's down in the trenches where the bad stuff happens.
This blows my mind, and it's actually kind of upsetting. However I will point that the only people I have any kind of respect for, are the people I've talked to and / or are following. Especially TNG, I owe you beer my friend. The anti-reddit sentiment is so strong on this site, that the last 'influx of redditors' was met with a suggestion to be able to auto-ignore every account that was less than X days old, and it was seriously considered by the admins (I have no idea if they went forward with it or not). It was specifically a move against redditors. There are a lot of people who won't like to see it characterized in this manner, but lets call a horse a horse.
Personally, ignore is a great feature, as is hush. But mute is straight-out censorship, and is both ineffective and prone to abuse. (Ineffective because someone can always create a throwaway account, prone to abuse because someone can censor any response to their post) To put it simply: I personally believe it's fine for person B to refuse to allow person A to talk to them, but not for person C to refuse to allow person A to talk to person B.
When I ignore someone I don't see their posts, but they are still free to make them. When I mute someone, why don't they retain the ability to comment in all posts, but I simply just won't see their comment. I don't think that's the best analogy, but I'm trying to teach myself things right now so not entirely focused.
What is the difference between ignore and mute, in that case? Personally, I wish it was hush / ignore comments / ignore posts, and no mute "feature" at all.
Ignore: You wouldn't see their posts, but would see their comments. Mute: You wouldn't see their comments, but would see their posts. At that point mute would function as an "ignore comments" function.
Ah ok. That's pretty much in line with how I wished things worked.
That's not a problem, that's a feature. nowaypablo had you muted. You got bent about it. Somehow or other, the two of you set aside your differences and community was forged. I've got like 58 people muted. Each and every one of them either: a) is a spammer b) can't have an argument without resorting to ad-hominem attacks. The rest of them - and there have been something like a dozen - have apologized and life goes on. You're right - if you try to piss in one of my posts, and I decide I don't like your face, I can censor you. If you don't like that, you can try apologizing. If you don't, you can move on. Either way. you aren't constitutionally entitled to comment on everything you want. You can "follow" whoever you want, wherever you want. The counterbalance to that is to tell someone "fuck off, I don't care if you follow me, I can curate your ass right out of my feed." I'm muted a few places around here. I'm totally fine with that. those are battles I've won. If I felt like groveling and making things all better, I would - but the only reason I would do so would be to tell those people they're wrong all over again and that benefits exactly no one. If you can be civil, you can ask to be unmuted. If you can't, you have no business replying. Period.
Dude. I've asked to be unmuted to apologize to you a couple times now through third parties. Still muted. What the what? Don't like bugging you publicly, too much unnecessary drama, but can't PM you because I'm muted. Would happily apologize for dickish behavior, but I can't without being unmuted. Pretty please? Cherry on top? Don't have to be all buddy buddy with you, but I do have to apologize regardless.
You: 1) Reached out to one other person 2) Were told by that one other person that you had been unmuted 3) Made no attempt or overture to reach out to me for a straight week 4) Were muted again upon revisiting the comments that got you muted in the first place. You said you wanted to apologize. Then you didn't. That's the system at work right there.
Okay, yeah, one other person. But, and I don't like to admit to this level of obsession: I tried PM'ing a couple times a day after he interceded, and every time I got that "you can't PM somebody who has muted you" message, after which point I gave up because I assumed you just didn't want to deal with me. Seriously, the first interaction was a bad, bad thing, but the lack of interaction after that was a comedy of errors. Or just errors.
Part of fasting and not waking up till 3 or 4 PM is that I get to see wondrous posts like these after the fact. I remember distinctly my last comment to mreil, and it was something along the lines of "may your complaints about Hubski on Hubski be long and unfruitful." Looks like he took that to heart. I don't see any point in engaging him any further, so...I dunno. But it's weird to me that he thinks the site is the reason Hubski is a bad place, when in reality it's just because he's an unpleasant person and no one likes interacting with people who are unpleasant. Regardless, I'm just going to watch from afar and hope this works out in some way.
You're more transparent than you think. Had you wanted the situation resolved personally, you could have messaged any one of those people responding to the thread to say "hey, could you ask nowaypablo why he has me muted?" You didn't. You made a public #hubski post to decry the entire system. An over-reaction? Probably, considering it's the third "muted" post we've had in two days. Would you prefer I said you "over-reacted and made a public spectacle over a personal problem?" Because that's what I mean by "got bent about it."
I'll reply to you here mkr (thanks kb), I had you muted because of some bullshit arguments you were having with some other people, and because I couldn't get them out of my face every time I went on my Feed, I triple-blocked you. After I realized that meant you couldn't communicate with me, I unblocked your ability to reply to posts/comments. It wasn't personal, and we have had no beef towards each other. Hope you understand. Edit, also I'm not sure what you mean when you say "no one will see it."
I understand completely. I went and cleared out my mute list once I realized how it worked. | Edit, also I'm not sure what you mean when you say "no one will see it." ' My understanding is it also keeps other people from seeing it, not just the person who muted. Uncle Ben would not approve.
Hubski allows us to curate our own experience. What a wonderful idea! We can follow individuals, making their posts appear more often for us. We can filter individuals, making sure we never see them. We can follow or filter topics, too. And of course we can silence others. Wait. One of those things isn't like the others, is it? As a new user, I am upset by the mute feature. Censorship is the opposite of open discourse, and this website is based on open discourse. The massively pro-mute leaning of the comments makes me want to pack up my ball and go home. I'm not sure that's particularly constructive, but it's honest. Alternatively, maybe we should go hog wild with the mute feature. I'll mute all the pro-mute people. They, I'm sure, would be happy to return the favor. Maybe we can even get MKR to mute everyone here. No one gets to talk! I'm sure that'll make for an excellent website. Cheers!
Pretty much my reaction as well. I think anyone who has any sense of fairness about them would agree that it's an unnecessary 'feature' that specifically goes against the stated goals of Hubski. As a new user, I am upset by the mute feature. Censorship is the opposite of open discourse, and this website is based on open discourse. The massively pro-mute leaning of the comments makes me want to pack up my ball and go home. I'm not sure that's particularly constructive, but it's honest.
(Taken from another thread I just posted on. For the record I've been here for a month.)' EDIT: I even say in my profile that I don't give much of a fuck about what people think of me: Muting somebody just because and I quote from the post which I recently deleted "a total authoritarian asshole" because you implied that a person who didn't take a course of action should suffer the same punishment as someone who follows through on a course of action. Anyway apparently if you think that somebody who makes a tasteless joke about terrorism, should suffer the same consequences as a terrorist, you're worth muting. God forbid I say something that pisses people off, eh I think it's a fact of my life. Anyway I think I'll cut down on voicing my opinions since people find them too radical or "authoritarian" for this site. For the record I was also compared to Joseph Stalin from post, from somebody I've never had any interaction with...
Sarcastic asshole and general giver of no fucks.
I see a valid use for the mute -- but share your concerns. http://cadwaladr.blogspot.com/2014/06/hubski-some-observations.html
Hubski allows for dual submissions, FYI. Is the filter/mute system perfect? No. But nothing is. Anyway, we're always looking for suggestions on how to improve, so if you have any, feel free to write about them publicly, or send a PM to mk, thenewgreen, insomniasexx, forwardslash, or me.
I also encountered a "you are muted here" problem this week. I couldn't respond to people asking me questions about my own comment. It was extremely irritating and disappointing. I can understand a user muting one thread, but the fact that someone can prevent me from answering question on my own comment is very bizarre, and very much in need of adjustment.
For me, then mute function is to be used in pretty rare circumstances. If I encounter someone that is spamming in comments I will mute them. If someone has offended me by being racist, sexist, or otherwise appalling by my standards, I will mute them. However, if I encounter users that I think are muting people out of spite or too liberally. I will likely unfollow that person because I know they're shutting out potential ideas etc. Like BB said , duplicate posts are allowed on Hubski to help prevent someone not being able to take part in a discussion on a particular article. -my two cents on muting. It's not a perfect system, but it's getting better all the time. We are open to suggestions. I think some people are using mute the way I would use hush.
"Think" is the key word here, we have no public record of who someone mutes. The only way this can possibly get back to you is posts like this. If this site gets larger, then there will be a flood of "I was muted by X" posts. It will be impossible to keep track of them all and deal with them all at an individual basis. In fact, malicious users could fight back. I could right now claim that YetAnotherAccount muted me in a new post. You would have no way of knowing if I was telling the truth, and if YetAnotherAccount joined the conversation and said "nuh-uh", then it's a he said she said situation. Every single post in a larger scale version of this site would be impossible to verify, and the mute feature would just become a rampant abuse not just from a direct feature standpoint, but from an argumentative standpoint. It would turn the users against each other, make the site an arguing site, and mass bot sign ups just to make false accusations would drown out the real accusations.However, if I encounter users that I think are muting people out of spite or too liberally. I will likely unfollow that person because I know they're shutting out potential ideas etc.
kind of like how up/downvotes aren't really used the way properly according to 'reddiquette'. I happen to agree with you completely, the feature won't scale well, and if they find the sort of growth reddit had, they'll learn to appreciate the problems reddit had to deal with.
That was weird. You linked to me twice, and it appeared twice in my notifications. That being said, I fully agree with you.
How something is supposed to be used is not the same thing as what it is capable of being used for. As you say: "I think some people are using mute the way I would use hush.". And the mute function, as it is currently implemented, is too open to abuse. Duplicate posts for a link doesn't really help, as that doesn't scale: if person A posts an article, and person B is muted by person A and so creates a new post, and person C is muted by person B and so creates a new post... You'd end up getting to a point with enough users that people cannot look at all discussions of a particular link. Not to mention that that only helps with discussions of the link itself, as opposed to people trying to reply to someone within the discussion. My two cents? Adding tools to help people do what they are already able to do is great. Adding tools to enable people to censor other people is not. So. Keep hush and ignore feature as-is, but change mute to only prevent you from seeing their comments. Now, that being said, a way to flag posts for admin/mod attention would help.
I disagree with this. Putting moderation into the hands of the users is what makes hubski so great. I agree that mute should be adjusted, though, and is censorship. I still strongly believe in the web of trust model I proposed awhile ago. Ignore the top half of this post and skip to the paragraph starting "None of these actually solve the comment problem":Now, that being said, a way to flag posts for admin/mod attention would help.
way too complicated, just get rid of mute alltogether, and allow people to filter the posts of ignored users if they so choose. It would solve all of the issues both sides have with it. But it would take away some control from the old hands, so it will never see the light of day, unfortunately.
Good point. I shall have to think about this. Alternative web-of-trust, that doesn't have recursion issues. Originally intended for an up/downvote system, but can be tweaked for hubski. Like yours, this is per-user. For each user, you calculate a correlation coefficient for all other users. Simplest being Pearson's product-moment correlation, with upvote being 1, downvote being -1, and no vote being 0, but there are others. Then you multiply their vote by their correlation. Yes, this means that if someone tends to vote oppositely of you, their upvote may be counted as a downvote for you. In actuality, you don't want to have to keep n^2 correlation coefficients calculated. There are probably a bunch of other approximations that would hep reduce the load to a manageable level. I disagree with this. Putting moderation into the hands of the users is what makes hubski so great.