RE: Why muting is a bad look for BLURT

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Why muting is a bad look for BLURT

in blurt •  2 years ago  (edited)

disclaimer: I'm not trying to say Russia is wrong or right that was purely an example. I actually don't know that much about Russia vs Ukraine because I don't really trust the news in general. That was just an example of what someone would use the mute option for.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE BLURT!
Sort Order:  
  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Its not censorship if you can't comment or only certain people can comment on a post IF that's how the rules work. If everyone has property over who they allow to comment that's not censorship when you refuse certain people that permission, on your property. If I were to remove comments or edit them, that would be censorship. Yet even then, if the information is still on the backend, and since its impossible to change it without the author's key or a supermajority of top 20 witnesses, that wouldn't constitute censorship, since it would be no different than every other blog, where commenting is a privilege, not a right, from every extension of self ownership comes the right to refuse to associate with certain people, so to should one have the right to refuse his property and its shelter to any he so chooses. If the person is not permitted to comment on certain blogs that's not preventing or stopping that person from expressing themselves wherever else they are permitted or to simply screech at the walls, posting away. I think we should be able to refuse transactions from certain people, just the same.
This is an old post on the topic:
https://ecency.com/steem/@baah/uncensored


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

At what point does your property become a public space? If you, as a communicator or a distributor of certain topics, place yourself on your property in such a way that as many people as possible should hear you, is it still the case that comments from the listeners are their privilege?
Is it not also the case that the speaker is not equally privileged to have an audience?

That being said, is a blog the same as a piece of property?

What is the alternative to a "right" to comment from the audience? How else could one put it?

One person talks, many listen.
The speaker never said he didn't want comments. Per event, people are there who have eyes, ears and mouths.

If, on the other hand, a speaker only wants a silent audience, he basically wouldn't need to make his speech public on his property, would he? So what does he want? If he wants comments, he will get both applause and boos. If it's always one and the same person shouting "Boo!", that's annoying, but not very much more. There is not one righteous, serene and wise man on one side (who owns the property) and not the other madman, crank and complete idiot on the other side - those are extremes, you get the idea.

But the one who reserves the right to exclude certain peoples from the space and henceforth to refuse access, one would also have to ask him whether he is prevented from speaking by the boo caller? This may indeed be the case in real life in a public place, where hecklers interfere, but not on the internet. Even there you can get right back in if you stop shouting loudly.

The more public the square (i.e. the more spectators gather and do so regularly) the more this clarity of "own property" blurs, doesn't it? In any case, as long as the event is still going on and the many people are still there. And why is ownership of property equalized with what someone says on it? As long as he does not destroy furniture and decoration, or slapping faces...?

At that moment, I have built up a public and to call someone out for being annoying (trying to make me look ridiculous, etc.) would mean for me as a speaker rather learning, like a good comedian, to integrate the queer birds from the audience into my scenes or to think better of whether I really want so much publicity and attention, on the one hand.
On the other hand, I can trust the rest of the audience, because it changes and the annoying orange doesn't need to be silenced by me, but the people in the crowd do get creative, if you give them credit for it. I don't really need to silence anyone if I recognise these and other alternatives.

From this point of view, the mute function would rather be an act of weakness or ignorance. Better remain a rare exception. But there are other perspectives as well. So I think, the solution is no solution. LOL Let it work it out organically.

Why do you think muting is associated with censorship?

Sorry, that got long.

  ·  2 years ago  ·   (edited)

At what point does your property become a public space? If you, as a communicator or a distributor of certain topics, place yourself on your property in such a way that as many people as possible should hear
you, is it still the case that comments from the listeners are their privilege?

Is it not also the case that the speaker is not equally privileged to have an audience?

Yes, the audience isn't a given and you can't exclude the outburst, but it wouldn't be censorship if you could or did, since the rules there would be what everyone who attends must agree to. The speaker only has a limited time, and any outburst that takes that time away from the speaker could be considered censorship. Unless there were no rules, no decorum that everyone accepted, then yes, the comments aren't a privilege but a right of the onlookers.

That being said, is a blog the same as a piece of property?

It's similar enough in that, like a piece of property, it has an owner and can be transferred, or abandoned.

What is the alternative to a "right" to comment from the audience? How else could one put it?

A right is not the correct way to put it if its not established in the rules of wherever the blog resides. It's a right as long as the rules are there to establish so, but in lack of such universal rule, it is only a privilege.

One person talks, many listen.
The speaker never said he didn't want comments. Per event, people are there who have eyes, ears and mouths.

Then if there's no rules that they established I image people will function within those guidelines. That sounds like a dialogue or question and answer, where they are in their right to express themselves but it wouldn't be censorship should they be removed or barred from engaging if they were being disrespectful or hurling accusations and lies.

If, on the other hand, a speaker only wants a silent audience, he basically wouldn't need to make his speech public on his property, would he? So what does he want? If he wants comments, he will get both applause and boos. If it's always one and the same person shouting "Boo!", that's annoying, but not very much more. There is not one righteous, serene and wise man on one side (who owns the property) and not the other madman, crank and complete idiot on the other side - those are extremes, you get the idea.

The property could be a journal, or a newspaper, or a conference hall, they are publicly available but they aren't for everyone to express themselves, they are hired and private first and foremost, and at the same times open to the public, but the public is only afforded privilege.

But the one who reserves the right to exclude certain peoples from the space and henceforth to refuse access, one would also have to ask him whether he is prevented from speaking by the boo caller? This may indeed be the case in real life in a public place, where hecklers interfere, but not on the internet. Even there you can get right back in if you stop shouting loudly.

They only have to point out that they reserve the right to exclude any and all comments and users that they don't want, they needn't explain or justify their actions in that regard.

The more public the square (i.e. the more spectators gather and do so regularly) the more this clarity of "own property" blurs, doesn't it? In any case, as long as the event is still going on and the many people are still there. And why is ownership of property equalized with what someone says on it? As long as he does not destroy furniture and decoration, or slapping faces...?

The line between private and public property isn't blurry. Private property is equalized to the owner's domain. In a public venue such as an opera, disruption is closer to censorship than it would be to establish a dress code and exclude everyone who doesn't adhere to it.

At that moment, I have built up a public and to call someone out for being annoying (trying to make me look ridiculous, etc.) would mean for me as a speaker rather learning, like a good comedian, to integrate the queer birds from the audience into my scenes or to think better of whether I really want so much publicity and attention, on the one hand.
On the other hand, I can trust the rest of the audience, because it changes and the annoying orange doesn't need to be silenced by me, but the people in the crowd do get creative, if you give them credit for it. I don't really need to silence anyone if I recognise these and other alternatives.

It's not about having supporters, if we understand that you are owner of your space, it's not censorship to do as you please with your space. Even if you banned and deleted comments, if those comments are still available by some virtue to your audience, it wouldn't be censorship. If you said everyone can comment, and then removed and edited comments without any way for people to see the edits and removals, it would be censorship.

From this point of view, the mute function would rather be an act of weakness or ignorance. Better remain a rare exception. But there are other perspectives as well. So I think, the solution is no solution. LOL Let it work it out organically.

It's something I think needs to be implemented if we want more people to join since it's a basic right of people to chose who they associate with and on top of that many don't regard the comment section as a free public space. People want the option of excluding nefarious actors, if they don't have it they will probably keep to the sidelines.

Why do you think muting is associated with censorship?

They think they are entitled to be heard, and so they think that someone refusing to listen is effectively refusing them the right to express themselves. In effect, they think they are entitled to a receptive audience.


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Disrespect is in the eye of the beholder and depending on how an audience and how the speaker reacts, it would not be censorship, but it would still cause quite a stir with all concerned. A lot would have to go out on the part of the disruptor before the tolerance level of a relevant number of people in the audience would break their patience to finally expel someone. I have observed this in real life situations.

Whether someone is spreading a lie would still have to be proven. Notoriously very difficult to prove, but also known to be the easiest thing to say of all those who call others liars who disagree with their own views.

In this blog environment, you don't know all that. The space can be anything in the mind of the person sitting alone in front of their computer, a theatre space, an art stage, a speaker's corner, a self-promoting performance, a podium, a fighting arena etc. etc. - But above all, the user must get the impression that it is a podium or open space with the character of a dialogue (for the sake of comments).

How do you see the permanent exclusion (house ban, to remain in the linguistic jargon of the offline world) of a commentator? Would you say it already carries the potential of censorship?

I see the online space as a huge experimental field where people try to behave humanely without having direct contact with each other.

I don't see any clear rules here. They are interpreted, I think. I am ambivalent about this, I am neither promoting rules nor do I reject them. I play by my own rules, so to speak.

People only have their intellect at hand here. They don't really see anyone, nor do they hear or smell them, nor can they touch them or interpret their gestures and facial expressions. They miss the real atmosphere of a meeting with the individuals and the many.

There may be something going on at a - how shall I put it - metaphysical level and in the cacophony of bloggers, commentators and the rest of the media din, there may be a field that can be helpful alongside all the unhelpful side effects.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Disrespect, lies, etc are from the basis of their questions or comments, in a open q&a session. If they are removed because of them being of a certain ideology, then it would be censorship, but to remove someone based on the instance, not on their philosophical principles but the instance of disrespect, lies, etc, that's not censorship.

Whether someone is spreading a lie would still have to be proven. Notoriously very difficult to prove, but also known to be the easiest thing to say of all those who call others liars who disagree with their own views.

Not at all. Its always incumbent on the person making the claim to provide justification and substance for it. That's why a lie may spread but nobody has to disprove it, it can simply be labeled a lie, even if the liar is convinced its true.

In this blog environment, you don't know all that. The space can be anything in the mind of the person sitting alone in front of their computer, a theatre space, an art stage, a speaker's corner, a self-promoting performance, a podium, a fighting arena etc. etc. - But above all, the user must get the impression that it is a podium or open space with the character of a dialogue (for the sake of comments).

Exactly, this is why I initially said

Its not censorship if you can't comment or only certain people can comment on a post IF that's how the rules work. If everyone has property over who they allow to comment that's not censorship when you refuse certain people that permission, on your property.

If that impression doesn't have anything to suggest it, then there's no expectation being crushed.

How do you see the permanent exclusion (house ban, to remain in the linguistic jargon of the offline world) of a commentator? Would you say it already carries the potential of censorship?

It all depends on what the rules are. Was there any exceptions, was there any explicit or implicit promises of not being removed? The potential for censorship is penchant on a centralized authority, otherwise its Consensus.

I see the online space as a huge experimental field where people try to behave humanely without having direct contact with each other.

Online space is a broad term, its pointless to ascribe it any kind of characteristics like how people behave or expect.

I don't see any clear rules here. They are interpreted, I think. I am ambivalent about this, I am neither promoting rules nor do I reject them. I play by my own rules, so to speak.

Because you're looking at a hodgepodge of spaces and trying to characterize them as one field, but that's not fruitful for grasping any one of those spaces, let alone the entire gamut of them.

People only have their intellect at hand here. They don't really see anyone, nor do they hear or smell them, nor can they touch them or interpret their gestures and facial expressions. They miss the real atmosphere of a meeting with the individuals and the many.

Those things are as superficial as they are nuanced..

There may be something going on at a - how shall I put it - metaphysical level and in the cacophony of bloggers, commentators and the rest of the media din, there may be a field that can be helpful alongside all the unhelpful side effects.

Ideas, pointers, and knowledge, those things are that something. Immortal and more valuable than riches and sentiments.



Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·   (edited)

What then is the difference between disrespect and being accused of lying and "belonging to a certain ideology"?

"Lie" is a strong word, whoever calls another a liar must, after all, think that he himself possesses the truth. In the use of these very words of "lie" and "truth" themselves, I see an ideological spectrum.
How about avoiding these terms altogether?

Where I use this crutch for disagreeing with someone else's statement, I am virtually provoking the counter-question that I am not the one who has to justify a statement, but the one who calls me a liar is supposed to refute it. This very attack of calling me a liar is grist to my mill, because I easily can find something where the other one lied himself.

"You are lying" is not an argument. Then everyone will come and claim such and side with the truthful, while the others are of course put in the camp of the untruthful. An excellent vicious circle, brimming with ideology, I would say. I see it as the very foundation for censorship.

If I perceive someone as a liar and I feel obliged to tell him so, and I then find this is sufficient and the person so called shall admit it (turns his left cheek), then I must think that I am dealing with saints.

If I don't completely ignore my knowledge, I can rather expect the other person to react emotionally to it (angry, vindictive, insulted, offended, sad etc. etc.). Maybe my intent is to defeat them in this way that I non stop call them "liar!", in the hope that one day, they will be defeated (surrendering under shame and blame, for example). If you overpower them, they might surrender but inwardly they may still think they are right (and die with it).

Accusing someone of lying is not an opener for dialogue but a closer. As a result it opens up a fight not allowing any further arguments. To be willing to be defeated by argument, needs the will that this is allowed to happen in the first place.

How do you relate to "The moment I think that I am possessing the truth, I'll lose it, the moment I let doubt happen, I'll win it."?

"Lying" represents one of the christian sins and I feel it's as strong rooted in Westerners as ever.

In the history of Christianity, around 400 AD, there was a big argument between Augustine and a Celt called Pelagius. Pelagius was a British optimist who believed in muddling through, pitching in and pulling your weight. He held that one could fulfil God's commandments through one's own will and effort and argued that God would not have given us commandments if we could not obey them. Augustine, however, was of the opinion that Pelagius had thoroughly misunderstood this. If he had read Paul correctly, especially his letter to the Romans, he would have been able to conclude that God did not give us the commandments so that we might obey them, but rather to show us that we cannot. To speak with Paul: God gave us commandments that we cannot keep in order to lay sin upon us. In other words, the commandments were a gambit, an upaya. It was not really expected that a person could keep a commandment like the one in the Ten Commandments: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." No one can do that.

The Buddhists have come to a similar conclusion. In its original form, the Buddha's teaching also appears to be strict. He said, "Listen, you need a discipline. Work and renounce women, alcohol and possessions. Start meditating and mastering your mind." Now everyone tried their hand at this, and most failed. Some succeeded, but afterwards they withered away. It turned out that they had won a Pyrrhic victory.

German source

While I can agree with your definition of censorship, I would say in the very next breath that the stoic insistence on definitions and rules in and of themselves create problems where none need be. For the most part, conflicts are not about the correct statement, but about the relationships between the parties involved. Conflict is usually characterised by the fact that one does not so much uses questions as want to give a lesson or rock-solid answer.

Rather, I can choose to converse and get along with you instead of you having to agree with my stance or opinion.

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

What then is the difference between disrespect and being accused of lying and "belonging to a certain ideology"?

Disrespect is aimed at the person, their character, like lies, while the last is regarding concepts and theories. The theory and ideas might be sound or impotent, they may be debated without any implications of who debates them and why, to know they are sound or not. Accusing of lying those who lie isn't the same as lying and smearing people as liars, I wasn't implicating that at all, but that they are lying, not merely accused of such, the difference being that the lie is confronted, challenged and evident.

Where I use this crutch for disagreeing with someone else's statement, I am virtually provoking the counter-question that I am not the one who has to justify a statement, but the one who calls me a liar is supposed to refute it. This very attack of calling me a liar is grist to my mill, because I easily can find something where the other one lied himself.

Its specific to the instance, not to the persons habits. Disagreement and lying are two different things. If someone calls you a liar, they burden themselves with the claim to show how and why you're lying, in my hypothetical the liar is the one "accusing of lying with nothing to show for it".

"You are lying" is not an argument. Then everyone will come and claim such and side with the truthful, while the others are of course put in the camp of the untruthful. An excellent vicious circle, brimming with ideology, I would say. I see it as the very foundation for censorship.

Its simply a matter of making false claims. The claims aren't an argument.

If I perceive someone as a liar and I feel obliged to tell him so, and I then find this is sufficient and the person so called shall admit it (turns his left cheek), then I must think that I am dealing with saints.

People can be mistaken, they can misconstrue, and not remember correctly.

If I don't completely ignore my knowledge, I can rather expect the other person to react emotionally to it (angry, vindictive, insulted, offended, sad etc. etc.). Maybe my intent is to defeat them in this way that I non stop call them "liar!", in the hope that one day, they will be defeated (surrendering under shame and blame, for example). If you overpower them, they might surrender but inwardly they may still think they are right (and die with it).

If you do it because they indeed are lying who cares if you convinced them or not, the point is to confront the lie and stop the lying, mission accomplished. Dispelling denial and delusion alike can't be expected without the other persons willingness, depending how much you care about them it's something you have to decide how much badgering, avoidance or acceptance you extend to them. Delusion and denial is what we all suffer from in various degrees.

Accusing someone of lying is not an opener for dialogue but a closer. As a result it opens up a fight not allowing any further arguments. To be willing to be defeated by argument, needs the will that this is allowed to happen in the first place.

Not if they don't intend to lie, it could simply be a mistake.

How do you relate to "The moment I think that I am possessing the truth, I'll lose it, the moment I let doubt happen, I'll win it."?

If you think its true, you'll dismiss everything else in regards to that, as false or incorrect, so the moment you realize that truth is a certainty you'll stop peering into it.

It turned out that they had won a Pyrrhic victory.

Maybe they gained inner peace, they became teachers and helped others find it and do the same, while everyone else was fraught with titillating between desire and suffering.

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." No one can do that.

Even nuns and monks? The biggest charity is extended by the church.

While I can agree with your definition of censorship, I would say in the very next breath that the stoic insistence on definitions and rules in and of themselves create problems where none need be. For the most part, conflicts are not about the correct statement, but about the relationships between the parties involved. Conflict is usually characterised by the fact that one does not so much uses questions as want to give a lesson or rock-solid answer.

Rather, I can choose to converse and get along with you instead of you having to agree with my stance or opinion.

Language is the domain of definition, without which ideas and concepts are meaningless. Opinion is the domain of preference, of tendency, of our inner desires and aversion, with which we battle not only against one another but ourselves. In effect, language in the domain of definition is the pointer to certainty, like math, and our opinions are the pointer to what's uncertain and resides in our preference, what can't be ascertained as definite and certain. Censorship is but a pointer, an idea, we are defining what it is and inversely dispelling what it isn't.


Posted from https://blurtlatam.com

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

What is obvious and wrong for one is not necessarily so for the other. Those who believe themselves to be on the safe side (certainty in the definition of language) want to believe themselves equally certain in the preference of their ideas as well as dislike of the ideas of others and mix definition with the same ideas, wishes and hopes. If it were not so, one would not want to refer to a sovereignty of definition.

The individual retains the ultimate sovereignty of definition by either accepting the given definition or rejecting it. A clear boundary between the given or the challenged definition cannot exist permanently in time and space because otherwise all original definitions would never change, they would remain fixed in it. The fact is that they are not. For example, if muting were perceived by a relevant number of people as censorship, even though by definition it is not, the more powerful group appropriates its own definition and negates that of the less powerful group. This can then quite possibly be understood as consensus, and where this consensus remains for a certain period of time, the modified definition enters into sovereignty. The sovereignty of definition marks an ideal, an orientation for certainty.

This is what is meant by the comparison of the Christian Ten Commandments and Buddhist discipline. They are basically a paradox. To put it exaggeratedly, the only certainty is that one cannot be certain of anything. Truthfully, one would then have to answer, "Although I suffer from certain delusions and denials, I am not mistaken." HaHa! A paradox!

To which one might reply, "Only the madman has no doubt". But it would indeed be correct to say that although you might be mistaken, you nevertheless intend to hold fast to the action you are willing to perform and advocate. With a price tag stuck on.

If I were to ask you if you were certain of your own delusions and denials and what exactly they were, and you were able to answer me clearly, they would no longer be delusions and denials at that moment, would they? You would then have a Catch22.

Against this backdrop, it makes perfect sense to keep in mind one's own suppressed ideas of a better world, or to try to get to the bottom of them, otherwise I run the risk of casting the first stone.
I don't see where throwing stones has been crowned with great success in human history. Morally convicted perpetrators in the upper echelons seem to have got away with their deeds as good as ever, apart from peasant victims, since they have not been convicted before the law. They have not, and not only do they see that they used lies or deception, but can assume that anyone who accuses them has some dirt on them themselves. Because "all men are sinners".

But what if I realise that I cannot possibly follow the rules to the letter and that I can never fully rely on definitions? Isn't this paradox one of the most important insights I can have?

Does it mean that I, knowing that I cannot, murder my grandmother and rape little children? That I, aware of my weaknesses, from now on use this as a free ticket?

  ·  2 years ago  ·  

Its specific to the instance, not to the persons habits. Disagreement and lying are two different things. If someone calls you a liar, they burden themselves with the claim to show how and why you're lying, in my hypothetical the liar is the one "accusing of lying with nothing to show for it".

I agree. But isn't it the case that the one accused of lying doesn't always think he has anything to prove at all? In recent events, my experience has been that people simply ignore questions and pretend that there is no one who has even asked one. Which shouldn't stop one from continuing to ask.

The people who don't want to accept questions build walls, I have found. They make sure that no more questions reach their ears through blockades. They simply "mute" the uncomfortable questioner (either in thought or deed). The one who asks critical and uncomfortable questions is left in complete uncertainty as to whether it has even been received, let alone heard or read. Silence. This can make you so furious that you are tempted to take all kinds of radical or stupid actions.

I suppose it was/is just such a wall of silence that broke the camel's back in the disruptive events of human conflict.