Right. So if say the founders or devs all mute someone it will not affect their visibility to everyone else on their own posts? They just won't be able to talk publicly to the devs and founders on their public posts?
RE: It's not Censorship (Honest)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's not Censorship (Honest)
Yeah, because Dev's and team are humans as well, they can also mute someone as any other user will do.
But that does not mean a muted person will be blocked from blurt, its just from one's personal space.
I see that, so would it be ok for say, blurtofficial to mute anyone? General consensus would be no in that instant wouldn't it? This is the crux.
I'd be ok with that account muting someone if they were constantly putting up dick picks or something of that nature on each blurtofficial post. But not ok, if it was a matter of simply not liking the opinions of a prominent author and muting them.
probably the prominent author is a piece of shit, and I bet on it. Sometimes dick pics seem decent to me than those shitty people, that shit is the worst
Wow. You are on fire!
I think the word you're looking for is 'melting'....
Humour is a form of non-violent pushback. Recognizing humour requires intelligence and maturity even when said humour seems immature.
That's a team account, so if the team agrees to mute someone, there are chances of getting them muted. But it will not be any single persons decision.
And I know these questions will keep going on, but the same answer
Mute is one right to block someone, which they want to, and it's okay if someone does. The muted person should also focus on better things, instead to cry that he got muted, and like he lost the purpose of life.
I believe there are many nice things to do, in the case, someone gets muted, then crying.
User mutes other user: no problem.
Management mutes a user on all its channels: a problem.
It would be as if, for example, your telephone provider cut off your communication channels with them because the person who is supposed to communicate with you (and you are an annoying, impatient or otherwise aggressive or demanding customer) "is only human". Of course, then you decide as management that you will get another colleague to take over the communication with the stressful customer. Or the colleague decides of his own accord to stop talking to this particular customer and delegate further (but communication maintenance is being provided for).
But the solution of muting a user in such a way that he or she cannot get in touch with the official channels is the worst and the most provocative. It not only causes such a muted user not to remain silent, but will seek other ways to spread his displeasure. Some user might never stop doing that unless he gets satisfaction.
A management that refuses to talk to its customers will harm itself in the long run. A blockchain crypto platform that blocks individual users from its channels will do the same (if it is not too big to fail).
Just for your info, this is not a subscription based product, no one is paying anything to us, to be called customers.
Blockchain is open and anyone can use that. Frontends are a way to use that and blurt.blog is one such frontend, it's a service by blurt core team, from people contributing to this blockchain. No one is liable to be a customer support. The blockchain is open source and free and anyone can have their own frontend.
But frontends are individual or group owned, and the rules can be made by them. If the team/individual thinks one should be muted, they will mute.
No one has the right to say, I should not be muted.
Why not say instead
I was wrong i accept but I am not sorry.
Muting is a consequence of one's action towards the person muting him.
I wouldnt give a pie to someone who is talking bad to me. Being on social media does not mean one should be forced to hearing shit and not using mute.
I hope you get it
Would you agree that there is a difference between bloggers and technicians? I refer to the bloggers as users who usually have little to no technical understanding. They do indeed (this may be unjustified from your point of view) expect a service. In fact, I agree with you when you say that such an expectation is inflated. But that does not stop the average user from continuing to have and express their expectations. The hoped-for influx of masses are precisely those who exclusively "usen" but do not develop or maintain. Would you agree that the non-technical blogger makes up a large proportion of those who are able to build frontends and use the open source code themselves?
The arguments of non-technical people and non-developers are irrational in many parts. That they are is annoying, but the irrational debates and arguments will not be reduced by telling the complainants that they can simply build their own frontends. They can't, that much is clear, isn't it?
One point where you can equate management with "witnesses" is precisely the communication with the people, who are very welcome in their mass presence, but on the other hand this mass presence causes conflicts.
The fact that witnesses provide the technology and maintenance on the one hand, I agree, does not per se mean that there is a claim to this service from the user side. On the other hand, since witnesses stand for election and thereby take an official position and yet make decisions based on observed problems or conflicts, it seems a contradiction that they have no responsibility for discrepancies in the consideration of functions.
In order to have the most peaceful and relaxed communication possible between techs and non-techs, as management I would always want to start from the "dumbest user" and listen to him and put myself in a position to ignore insults and instead see if, after putting aside the emotional parts, there is something to the criticism of a dumb user or something of use left because it could help me as a technician to address a certain problem.
That is all I am saying.
Good day to you.
No-one is crying about it. What would be the outcome of someone muting all the 'team'. This is not a silly question because I happen to know that groups were hijacked using the block function on another platform so it can be used nefariously.
Thanx for answering all my questions here, it's been illuminating. Particularly the last one.
What's the problem if any account mute other account even if that's an official account. You're content will be still seen on your blog, not on theirs blog. Many people here don't understand the blockchain. There is a difference between a frontend and a blockchain. Blurt.blog is a frontend, blurt is the blockchain. It's impossible to delete anything from the blockchain. All the muted content you may find here : https://blocks.blurtwallet.com/#/
That's the blockchain explorer. In case I muted someone you will not see what he/she wrote on my blog, but you can see that on the blockchain explorer. The main account they use for announcements of course can mute some spammer in their own blog, but not on your blog. And even that will be always seen on the explorer.
As well, only blurt.blog, and I guess blurt.live have this new mute option, other frontends not all of them have it.
Let me give you the example of hive, they have ecency, they have peakd, they have hive.blog, they have leofinance.io, proofofbrain.io and many many other frontends. Each one of them could have it's own rules, own settings, and even it's own politics.
And again, if you are muted by any account in blurt, even if that's the main account of announcements like @blurtofficial, or any of them, that doesn't mean your content in your blog for your followers will be hidden.
I hope I could explain it to you well now. And when I told you to give me evidnece, I mean of someone wrote something not aligned with the political view, or anything else and his content or her content was hidden in his own blog, for his own followers. I doubt that could be ever found here.
Let me add some thoughts to this particular thread.
I personally dislike muting users as it means I can become ignorant of the true environment. The few levers of control that a user has, should be used to create their preferred environment; a judicious use of the "follow" and "mute" features are designed to facilitate this. The additional "lever" of one's own psychology and state of mind is not something a chain can encode - that is everyone's personal responsibility.
The new extended mute feature is no different to the powers a "community moderator" would have, if we had the community-feature such as on Steem and Hive. Such a mod can block a user from their community for whatever reason. I have been pressing for many months to reinstall Communities, and it is now back on the list of future features, but is not a simple add-on, so will require some time.
However, moderating one's personal space is not identical to moderating a defined group of users - a community. It can be used in that way, and I wonder if some community-centred-accounts may wish to investigate how that can be done. The main difference is that a user can step into and then out of a particular community; they can choose to post within such a moderated environment, or not. But once you create your own environment, you then have to think carefully about the consequences - you cannot then "step outside" the environment you yourself created, apart from having an alt account. Much of the current discussions are about articulating those consequences.
Also note that such "personal environments" are dependent upon the front-end chosen. It would be better if such moderating parameters could be coded as levers of control by an individual user, but the choice still remains as to which platform one wishes to use. That is, in itself, a parameter. I do hope that there will remain one minimalist platform, just to see how that experiment would progress. Although not designed for posting, the Blurt blockexplorer is always there as a record of every action.
I dislike talking about "rights", though I sense most people feel they have some. The whole UDHR could easily have been written from the opposite point of view: a declaration of government obligations. Look around at how such "obligations" are being totally ignored and abused. This isn't the place for a long rant on rights, but let me focus on two Articles that contradict each other.
Article 19 states,"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 12 then limits the above rights with,"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
See the dilemma? You have "the right" to do both. So, freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the freedom to protect oneself. Indeed, this includes the freedom of silence. We also see this throughout the world; the promotion of the freedom of ignorance by the removal of all dissenting voices. But on this chain, you still have freedom of choice - and so does everybody else.
The "law", in the case of a blockchain, is the code, or more precisely, the functions given to users. My own aim is to ultimately create a set of functions that are both universal and reactive. We remain very far away from this goal. By universal, I mean that every user is subject to the same rules and functions - everybody has the same rights, if you wish to define it in those terms. The obligation of the chain is merely to process those actions. This is not a static environment, so as we bump up against limits, be they social or financial, then either the chain is reactive by design, or the design needs to be upgraded.
The consequences that arise from financial changes are often easier to predict, whereas those from social changes can open up new avenues of discontent. This doesn't mean the changes were wrong, it just means monitoring the resulting behaviour. This takes time.
I understand your point, and would say it's true that ....
"... a lot of people here don't.understand.blockchain."
As long as these people (I use the term "dumbest user" to clarify what I mean, in no way is it meant to be insulting). The dumbest user doesn't know anything about front-ends and back-ends. He has no technical understanding whatsoever (that's why I think "user" is a very appropriate word). I myself have been such a stupid user for a very long time (and still am to a large extent) because I don't fully understand the technology and secondly because I don't feel like familiarising myself with the many different frontends.
"What's the problem with one account muting another account, even if it's an official account."
That IS always a problem when the management side makes its own official communication channels inaccessible to a particular user. It would be like your phone provider making it impossible for you, the customer, to communicate with their various departments.
"Your content will still be seen on your blog, not on their blog."
It would be as if the reviews, for example on amazon or other webshops, of certain users would no longer appear. I call this a problem when critical reviews or those that help other prospective buyers make purchasing decisions are suppressed.
A relaxed management deals with emotional criticism in such a way that it filters out the emotionally charged messages and then looks at whether the complainant is making an important point. Smart management always listens to criticism from the dumbest or most aggressive user because it often reveals something valuable or even free advice from users on how management can improve parts of its product or service.
Good day and greetings
Ok, let's suppose someone has a website where he promotes his products. And a competition will come and spam the comment section with the competitive product lying about the product on the website to discredit it. Should that spam be left there so no one will buy the product on the website what the owner spend money to promote buy the way. And when I'm telling spam, I don't mean only links, but lying about the product, making fun of it, memes to not make people buy it.... etc. Will you as a businessman leave all that spam there ?
Good morning,
I ran an online wordpress site for a few years where I encountered spammers and aggressive users wreaking havoc in the comments section. But since I didn't do any aggressive marketing myself or include any form of advertising or indirect promises in my online presence, I kept it to a minimum and simply ignored such provocations. Or I set myself the challenge of whether I would be able to reach a level of conversation with someone that I was not sure I would be able to reach beforehand.
If, for example, I were selling a product or a service or running a blockchain, it would be clear to me that I would be required to use a thousand per cent more thoughtfulness and clever strategy in my communication at all times, as much more would depend on how I express myself than for a single user who provokes me.
There are clear rules for spam, I would no longer allow such an account after a short time or set it to inactive.
For other types of provocation, such as users who don't leave me alone and constantly complain about something or don't let up, I would consider the following:
If I can answer all this in the affirmative, no further reasons are needed to deny access to my business to someone to whom I showed my cooperation and willingness to communicate in this way. However, if I feel pure contempt, anger and rage towards someone who, in my eyes, is damaging my business, not only will it not get me anywhere, but I may not realise that I am further damaging myself and my business by handling a very hot potato in the same manner that is now called "cancel culture". Unfortunately, we have plenty of bad examples, don't we?
"his content or her content was hidden in his own blog, for his own followers. I doubt that could be ever found here."
I know this and I never said that. I also know rycharde and his views, I have enormous respect for him. I'm not talking about blogs being hidden.
We are all putting our thoughts and personal feelings on a public forum here. We are standing up and exposing our deepest thoughts for others to read and ENGAGE with us. The mute button (this new one) is like a performer going out on stage, say a comedian, and banning all hecklers. A comedian who did that wouldn't last 5 minutes in show business. If you can't take stick then you shouldn't be blogging. This is why we used to hide our journals under the mattress, even have a lock on them.
So this a public forum. For socializing. It's not the 3 wise monkeys.
OK, but in your example, that comedian would come to realise that muting part of the audience was a "bad idea" and starts to undo it. So a knee-jerk reaction may evolve into a more mature reaction. "grow up, brave it!" if one can - hence why in my response I added a "control lever" that no chain can control: one's own psychology.
Everyone has his own personal reason for blogging.
We don't have to talk to people we don't like to talk to. Or do we have to ?
No, we don't.
Some thrive on the drama, tho.