You aren't the first to have this criticism. I don't suspect that I can persuade you that you are wrong, but my reasoning behind the functionality here is largely inspired by interactions IRL. That is, the people that I engage with in are those I tend to get along with, and those that I continue to seek to associate with. The people that I engage IRL don't share all of my views, but we almost always have an overlap of one or more sort of interest, aesthetic, or opinion. Although I think it's a noble ideal, I haven't found people that remain associates IRL that have nothing in common beyond the desire to discuss things. Also, when I don't enjoy someone's company, or if they are rude or dismissive, I don't interact with them. I'm not saying that what happens here is the only kind of valuable interaction on the internet. But in order to have the types of discussions that we do have, options akin to those you have IRL are necessary. It might be an unfortunate fact, but it is a fact. It is a trade off, and it does come with limitations. Trust me, I'd love to have our cake and eat it too; we have tried. I do wish that people would use these mute less than they do. You and I have disagreed in the past, and I have never felt the need to mute you. Doing so wouldn't enhance my experience. It would make it worse.
Not to say those things are bad, they are awesome, community-building ideas. They just aren't exactly in line with that goal of "thoughtful" discussion. However, most of my interactions with people IRL tend to lean towards the inability to really say anything without fear of losing friends or being disliked. Then again, I'm not the most socially functional of people. It is unlikely that a person will remain friends with someone who persistently and consistently challenges their ideas. Any site that encourages the muting of people will encourage the formation of a community based on muting those you don't like, and "liking" someone is almost certainly correlated to "agrees with me in some way". Perhaps you can get variations on the same theme, but true, wold-subversive, disagreement creates strife, can cause anger, and will be silenced. Perhaps, in that way, a person can make hubski what they want from it.I don't suspect that I can persuade you that you are wrong, but my reasoning behind the functionality here is largely inspired by interactions IRL.
Although I think it's a noble ideal, I haven't found people that remain associates IRL that have nothing in common beyond the desire to discuss things.
You and I have disagreed in the past, and I have never felt the need to mute you. Doing so wouldn't enhance my experience. It would make it worse.
Certainly. "Thoughtful", no matter how defined, is a function of the users. To me it means something very different from the majority of contributors here, but I suppose it's neither my nor anyone's place to say what is or is not, since we're quibbling over definitions. I think most active contributors here use "thoughtful" in the sense my wife or mother would use it vis-a-vis, say, a thoughtful act. That's fine, IMO, but not something I'm keen to jump into most often. You're correct in that no matter what features and functions exist, the timbre of the site is dictated by the culture that has evolved (and continues to). I'm not sure one could design a mechanism (or if it would be desirable) that encourages a specific cultural bent.They just aren't exactly in line with that goal of "thoughtful" discussion.
It is my hope, but unless a significant portion of the people here consciously restrain themselves from muting as a result of disagreeable exchanges, then it might be overshadowed by the lesser angels of our nature. I actually considered the idea that a user could set a time out for their muting, filtering, etc., something like: However, after a point, these efforts border on absurd, and IMHO give the impression that the site can solve problems that people cannot.Perhaps, in that way, a person can make hubski what they want from it.
1 week, 1 month, 1 year, forever
I don't often mute or block users on this site unless they're spammers, so most of my experience with curating content comes from unfollowing people on my Facebook feed. One thing I thought was a rare good idea on Facebook's part was a suggestion to reconnect with unfollowed users. It was non-intrusive, but served as a reminder that I'd drastically altered the content of the website. I thought this might be worth reconsidering, so I re-followed all of those users. And while I ended up unfollowing almost all of them again within a week, I've left a couple of them in my feed--mostly people I'd disagreed with to the point I became annoyed with their posts. I've realized that it's good to have their opinions in my feed because it gives me a real sense of who the people around me are, even if some of their opinions are absurd. It's difficult to notice where the line is between removing offensive or worthless content, and constructing a personal echo-chamber of non-objectionable content in order to make yourself feel comfortable and validated. But while I don't think the latter is something that's inherently bad, a subtle reminder of how much you're altering the flow of information might be a good thing. Maybe a subtle (2) in the bottom corner of a given post or comment to show that two child comments have been filtered out. For users who never really considered the extent of their filter, it could provide an opportunity to reflect on that, and possibly reintroduce some objectionable content into their feed. For everyone else, it could be a reminder to thank the mods for providing them them tools to prevent ignorant commenters from raising their blood pressure.
It's an interesting idea. However, it could only be applied for posts as filter only removes posts from a certain tag, person, or domain from your feed. Mute prevents someone from commenting on your own posts, but doesn't filter the person's comments anywhere else.Maybe a subtle (2) in the bottom corner of a given post or comment to show that two child comments have been filtered out.