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 am sorry I made shit or I was wrong
Or atleast
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.