Recently, I have made a few posts asking about muting, freezing and coal lists. Mostly asking for clarification on the topic, which I received. I also accidentally started the most insane thread of like 30 comments with people arguing back and forth. And I have to admit, I'm NOT on the side of devs with this one.
First of all, the devs are over here bragging about how they didn't Freeze @lucylin, @ctime etc. Why was that on the table to begin with though? Unless Lucylin posted literal illegal porn or threatened someone famous and the actual Secret Service contacted BLURT, the idea of freezing an account shows that BLURT is considering backdoors to demonetize people. If BLURT demonetized people, it would basically mean BLURT is just a shittier version of HIVE.
Coal lists are a bit more reasonable, it's basically just a warning that the account is run by a literal criminal, although I cannot find any official rules or guidelines for not being coal listed. How do we know "extreme" views or something like this won't be coal listed in the future? Is their any guarantee of that?
Muting is by far the most egregious and stupid censorship decision. Let me explain why. From my understanding, you can actually mute someone from commenting on your page. This is literally censorship through demonetization. Let me give you an example. Today, I was reading some comments from baah about how muting isn't censorship. A user who brags about " pretty much shut[ting] down all Ukrainian propaganda on hive." Now let's say some user comments on Baah's blog with pro Ukraine stuff right? And let's say that is the top voted comment every time. How is baah muting them not censorship?
I understand the difference between a front end and the actual chain, but that is also a stupid argument. There are 2 main front ends on BLURT and the devs totally support this muting thing. Notice how every pro muting argument is a logical fallacy : It's just on the front end man calm down, you can use a glitch to post anyways, your blog is your property [it's literally not].
Muting just looks bad for BLURT. Maybe if you live in some backwater country where you were born thinking you have the right to censor certain opinions muting makes sense, but BLURT is an international community. When I joined BLURT one of the devs literally told me:
"You can write anything you wish to but I'd suggest not to attack anyone personally as this is a platform with thousands of users from all over the world with diverse backgrounds."
This is how I feel about muting. Most people in the world are against things like muting on blogging sites. Only tools who need a safe space and fly into rage over "Western Ideals" or negative opinions about BLURT even NEED a muting option. I can't think of a single time I would even dream about needing a muting option.
One final thought, is this even muting or is it really blacklisting? To me, muting would mean that I PERSONALLY don't see someone's comment, but it's still there. Having a comment muted for everyone is literally just blacklisting, HIVE doesn't even have an option like this. What BLURT is doing isn't even a muting option, it's a personal blacklist.
P.S The idea that your BLURT blog is somehow your property is so stupid that I won't even be addressing it. The fact people even argue this shows there is no real argument to be had. #caseclosed.
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
🥓
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.
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.
Hi, @buzzcutt,
Thank you for your contribution to the Blurt ecosystem.
Your post was picked for curation by @dr-frankenstein.
Please consider voting for our Upkeep Proposal by Symbionts.
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
Ok we get the point 🤣🤣🤣🤣
i'm shocked i even have to explain this to anyone
Was just laUghing as the comment showed up like 20 times 🤣🤣🤣
oh, right, i was trying to make a point
Ah now I get you I just thought it was one of those moments when you keep hitting return and it’s not sending 🤣🤣
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
the mute function is exactly the same as a spam-filter on your email
They only didn’t freeze them because so many of us stood against it. The one amazing thing we have on blurt we didn’t have over on big brother is we can speak our mind without losing income lol yes it would be better if people checked in with the community FIRST but they did at least have to listen later. As people we are stronger here to stand for the values the site upheld at the beginning of freedom.
Mute I couldn’t care less tbh most of the serial muters ended up with barely any interaction and upvotes. Just check your mute list and unfollow them and ignore them. Blurtlatam ignores mutes tho I believe