Is there any way to mute/block other users content?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (14).

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

For me it's just always been my preferred method to deal with free speech. I think many of us whom support free speech have often used the argument that you shouldn't aim to de-platform someone when you easily have the option to simply mute them if you don't like what they're saying.

I think it also allows the audience to expand a bit. Many people have misgivings about free speech sites like these, but on sites like Minds and Gab I just tell them to mute the ones they don't like. I'm not entirely against the idea of reducing someone's audience, I just find individually muting the people you don't like to be far more productive than keeping removing them because they might offend someone.

I understand the point about not living in echo-chambers, but I believe that decision should rest on the individual rather than some sort of forced-tolerance for opposing views. I'll also point out that, if I don't like what someone has to say, I'm just going to ignore them anyways regardless of if I have a mute option or not. The ones that don't mute them will more often be the ones that are easily angered and can't help but to start posting inflammatory remarks in response. I think the best ones to engage with them in open dialogue are the people who are open enough not to mute them if they could anyways.

I believe many people here are already inclined to disagree with echo-chambers, but the option to mute I think would overall be a good thing as long as people aren't being banned for their opinions.

Finally, I'm not sure if this issue exists here, but on Gab if you mute no one you end up essentially being spammed with extremists posts. I've had my fair share of engagements with people like that, but I tend not to be very interested in what they have to say. My largest interests are with all types of different opinions on all types of subjects, yet the very vocal extremists tend to dominate wherever they exist. The way they typically end up flooding my news feed in a way creates it's own form of echo-chamber where you end up only seeing the opinions of a vocal minority.

For me it's just always been my preferred method to deal with free speech. I think many of us whom support free speech have often used the argument that you shouldn't aim to de-platform someone when you easily have the option to simply mute them if you don't like what they're saying. I think it also allows the audience to expand a bit. Many people have misgivings about free speech sites like these, but on sites like Minds and Gab I just tell them to mute the ones they don't like. I'm not entirely against the idea of reducing someone's audience, I just find individually muting the people you don't like to be far more productive than keeping removing them because they might offend someone. I understand the point about not living in echo-chambers, but I believe that decision should rest on the individual rather than some sort of forced-tolerance for opposing views. I'll also point out that, if I don't like what someone has to say, I'm just going to ignore them anyways regardless of if I have a mute option or not. The ones that don't mute them will more often be the ones that are easily angered and can't help but to start posting inflammatory remarks in response. I think the best ones to engage with them in open dialogue are the people who are open enough not to mute them if they could anyways. I believe many people here are already inclined to disagree with echo-chambers, but the option to mute I think would overall be a good thing as long as people aren't being banned for their opinions. Finally, I'm not sure if this issue exists here, but on Gab if you mute no one you end up essentially being spammed with extremists posts. I've had my fair share of engagements with people like that, but I tend not to be very interested in what they have to say. My largest interests are with all types of different opinions on all types of subjects, yet the very vocal extremists tend to dominate wherever they exist. The way they typically end up flooding my news feed in a way creates it's own form of echo-chamber where you end up only seeing the opinions of a vocal minority.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

I wanted to say all good points, I haven't made any decisions yet but I'm thinking on it. I'll try to remember to write up a more detailed response to all this later tonight after I have completed my IRL and Poal duties.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Okay so I've managed to finish my duties and I have a few minutes to actually write up a response here.

So I'm not opposed to your idea, I'm really not, however developing such a feature would require a good amount of time investment, I'm not opposed to putting in the work, but I really struggle with the idea, I really considered and thought about it based on the two arguments for it I saw. I'm willing to put in the effort but not today, I have quite a few things on the to do list that rank higher, I'm not saying something like this isn't something we should have but I am saying there are quite a few things we need to do before it. I'm all about people have the choice to choose what they see but that doesn't take priority over me providing more free speech options. So I will add this to the infamous to do list but It'll be a while.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Fair enough, and thanks for taking it into consideration.

For someone like me it's not a huge issue, as I know how to just scroll past posts I don't enjoy. However, it would help to stop the clutter of my feed showing me posts I either find offensive or I'm simply just not interested in seeing.

parent
link