But I'm not sure it is that simple. On one hand you want to empower users to curate their feed, have control over their posts, and shape the hubski community in the way they see fit, but on the other hand, this is a public site and I come here expecting to see public discussion on topics, not one which is arbitrarily shaped by the submitter's ideological basis. I still think that finding ways to marginalize trolls and other detractors from productive conversation is an important goal of mute. I'm not sure that a fractured discussion is automatically a bad solution, I think the bigger issue is one of "How easy is it to manipulate the fractured discussion?" I mean, if it is as easy as assembling a cabal of popular hubskites to mute users who express a particular viewpoint, this seems bad to me, but I don't see what stops the muted group from simply making posts of their own and resubmitting stories themselves. This can be frustrating if you're looking for opposing or controversial viewpoints, while on the other hand, it can be beneficial if the marginalized group are simply disruptive assholes. I think it is a balance that ought to be struck.
I'm going to point this out because I've seen a lot of people have this confusion. Myself personally, and I believe most of the ones who agree with my stance on this issue, don't have a problem with the mute functionality as a whole. The idea of someone 'globally ignoring' me such that nothing I ever produce will be witnessed by that person doesn't bother me. However, when that person is able to completely lock you out of a conversation such that you're forced to 'create your own small island' just to get your opinion heard, there's a problem. Not just because it's inherently unfair, but because that's where the discussion is happening, and forcing someone to create their own small island just ensures that their viewpoint isn't seen or heard by a lot of people all because a single person didn't want it to be seen or heard. There's this attitude that because the people participating are "person X's followers", person X should be able to allow/disallow commentary. Why? According to what Hubski likes to parrot about themselves, you follow someone to see the content they produce, not the moderations they produce. If someone comments on that content, and person Y doesn't want to see the comment, they can themselves moderate it, why do we need, or expect, person X to moderate person Y's experience? This is a separate issue from discouraging trolls and the like. You do not need this feature in order to be able to discourage certain people. Hell, I'd be ok with a sort order that placed the muted person's responses lower in the thread for everyone just as long as anyone who was willing to read through the entire thing would also see the responses of the person muted. It's really about taking your ball and going home because someone offended you.
Here's the hilarious thing: ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS APOLOGIZE. Literally. If you can work out your problems with whoever muted you, you're likely to be unmuted. And that's the thing that you - and everyone aligned with you - is missing. Hubski's method incentivizes civility. Try it. Say, "hey eightbitsamurai, I just realized I've been a horrendous dick to you. I feel bad. Can we work this out so that you un-mute me? 'cuz I feel like I have some intelligent things to say on your posts." I'll bet you get better results than the last ten thousand words you've typed.However, when that person is able to completely lock you out of a conversation such that you're forced to 'create your own small island' just to get your opinion heard, there's a problem.
And discourages discourse. That's the point being made. You cannot challenge someone like 8bit on his approach to the race issue because you get muted, and your solution is to apologize for it. That this is the approach necessary in order to "survive" on this site is a part of the problem. There's a difference between respect and civility. 8bit thought it was cute when he attacking me, but apparently I'm the one that should apologize because I pointed out his hypocrisy. no thank you.Hubski's method incentivizes civility.
I appreciate the sentiment Klein, but I think I'm done, beyond apologies at this point. It's just funny to me because Hubski is probably the most vulnerable I've ever let myself get in an internet community, and now in retrospect it feels like I shouldn't have done that. At this point I'm just gonna take a little Hubski break, remind myself that in the end it's just a website. Hubskina's on its weekend hiatus anyways, and I've got the latest chapter all done, soooo, yeah, haha.
This was the entirety of my point on the mute issue. Hubski is entirely a safe space where we are actually ourselves and build real life relationships. People threatening that with any actions, but especially hate speech, do not have the right to voice their opinions.