Oh, definitely I'm for privacy and not having my whole life in front of the public. One hundred percent in favour. Some things are really nobody's business.
I think the mute button, where it is used by operators, management etc to keep some visitors away from other visitors, can encourage the formation of echo chambers.
Disengagement is a modern phenomenon that is becoming rampant in my eyes. Muting represents something like this for me when it becomes a habit.
Otherwise, I don't mind being muted.
i am not aware of any "global mute" being proposed currently
there is a "COAL" "blacklist" but that doesn't hide the posts, it only disables the voting buttons on SOME "front-ends" (blurt.blog)
go to this post:
https://blurt.blog/blurt/@blurtofficial/development-update-new-ui-features
and then look for familigiacurione's question which is answered by megadrive:
For me, that is a somewhat more impactful feature than before. Please correct me, if I am wrong.
this is a restriction controlled by individual bloggers
that only applies to the blog owned by that individual
basically, it's setting your blog to "friends only" or "screen comments"
these features are very common on other platforms
and to NOT constitute "censorship"
in contrast
if there was some account (blurtwardens) that could block someone from posting on ANY and ALL blogs, that would constitute "censorship"
it seems obvious to me that each person should have some control over who they allow into their house
my blog, my rules
your blog, your rules
nobody should be able to make content screening decisions for my blog, except of course, myself
nobody should be able to make content screening decisions for your blog, except of course, yourself
I understand that. I know it that way from my former wordpress blog as well. I have nothing against that.
My question to you is:
If witnesses, management post on their announcement pages something concerning the function of the blockchain and they thereby automatically have the interest of the many who want to read what changes or new functions the management announces and the management uses the official account (as for example this political bodies do via press conferences), would it be correct to say the following:
In my view, it would no longer be "my house, my rules", since it is no longer considered "my house" if a certain relevant number of people already and meanwhile understand it as a "public place". This is the accusation that the big platforms like FB and YT etc. have to face.
The perception of "private club" and "public place" is a fluid one.
My approach is to raise sensitivity to this, to resist the beginnings, because without necessarily knowing about it, the big platforms have become role models for others that are just emerging and might become big one day.
That's why I think my objection is relevant, because the future is always determined in the present and what course one sets without perhaps thinking about the function in which one finds oneself (I think that the founders are probably too personally involved here at times and criticism of them is taken too emotionally).
It is difficult to distinguish as a founder or witness, where am I speaking for myself as an individual and where am I speaking as a representative of a platform or a business model. Since none of the platforms are truly decentralised, it cannot be said that there are no representatives who (have to) represent the official technical functions (which are usually closely linked to social considerations). If, and I say if, those official channels mute users, I think it is not correct when it's a difference of opinion (not talking about spam or porn etc).
each blog is "just a blog"
even a blog that seems "official"
is still controlled by a human
who can choose to mute or screen comments at their whim
if someone disagrees
they are free to make a post about it
or reply to others in protest
but this idea that we need to make content-screening-rules that apply to others
is the "real-problem"
each person owns their blog and only their own blog
nobody should be forced to mute
or forced to un-mute
What do you reply to the distinction between
my blog (= content I publish = my space) and
comment-section
Is the comment section "mine"?
each account should be able to "screen" and or "mute" and or "block" comments
on their own blog
and ONLY on their own blog
So your answer is "yes, the comment section is mine"?
Sure. Of course I can write as many posts as I want on my blog. My modest reach may attract a handful of people, but they will recognise my channel as having too little reach as well. If you are someone who has been muted on the official channel and visitors there can't read your commentary or criticism and cannot interact with you as well, because you have been muted, your little personal blog is more likely to go under.
True, "factually" this is not censorship. There are supposed to be precursors or developments that can be seen as the antechamber of censorship.
Personally, I have not had any problems with censorship or being muted. However, I actually cannot exclude the possibility that I am already censoring myself in a certain way or retreating into the echo chambers where I practise free speech.
I don't understand. I am not for content-screening-rules. Quite the opposite.
well, you can tag the top 20 witnesses and the top stakeholders
if you really want some exposure
it seems unlikely that they will all mute you at the same time
https://ecosynthesizer.com/blurt/richlist
https://ecosynthesizer.com/blurt/richlist
What I want is to have exposure on the official channel, when the official channel announces something and I want to respond to it or place a question in the comment section.
censorship can only happen if someone else, some "authority" can control who you can view and who can view you
luckily, blurt also has multiple "front-ends" blurt.blog blurt.one blurtlatam so you're more likely to find one that reflects your ideals