It's user based and not global, if a user don't want you to reply on his posts, he can mute you.
This does not mean, you will be blocked everywhere.
It's just ones ability to allow, who can interact with them.
RE: It's not Censorship (Honest)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's not Censorship (Honest)
Right so you can see exactly who doesn't want to talk to you. I see how that could be seen as passive aggressive and quite upsetting for people who are effectively being gagged. A complete block like on facebook would be more appropriate if people do not want to engage with certain people. That way they can't see each other at all and won't know they haven't been invited to the party if you see what I mean.
Posts are actually public and can not be hidden. So, that's why
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?
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!
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
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.