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.
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
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
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.