Poll: Enhancing the "Mute" Feature

in poll •  2 months ago 

Poll Mute.jpg

Hello Steemians, we want to hear your thoughts on whether we should expand the “Mute” feature on steemit.com (specifically “Condenser” the open source software that powers steemit.com and a number of other sites) to include hiding comments on a blog from visitors to that blog if the author has Muted the commenter.

TL;DR

Leave a comment starting with “YES” if you believe that when you Mute another user that their comments should be hidden from your blog for other Steem users.

Leave a comment starting with “NO” if you believe that when you Mute another user that their comments should remain visible to the visitors of your blog even if you have Muted them.

After "YES" or "NO" you should feel free to share any additional thoughts you might have on the topic.

Ownership

At Steemit, we take very seriously the concept of “ownership.” Steem enables users to retain ownership of their social information and we believe that great Steem applications should play to this strength. But this question isn’t always straightforward, especially at the user interface level. It can also conflict with some people’s views on censorship.

Non-Consensus

One thing that will never change is that any information posted to the Steem blockchain will be open and accessible to anyone. This feature change we are suggesting would have no impact on that whatsoever. All comments will always remain on-chain, and any developer is always free to provide an interface that displays that information. We call these types of changes “non-consensus.”

Free Speech

We believe that you should always have the right to make your views public, but you do not have the right to harass, spam, or otherwise pollute someone else’s space. A user’s blog (and in the future their Community) should be a place where they feel safe to speak their mind. What good is censorship-resistance if people are censoring themselves out of fear?

Giving users the ability to hide any toxic elements from their space, while still leaving every other user free to make that determination for themselves, will enable everyone to express themselves more freely. What good is freedom if people don’t feel safe enough to use it?

Improving UX

We think that expanding the “Mute” feature walks the right line between preserving a person’s right to speak while also preserving a user’s right to protect their property and even enhance its value. We believe that this could dramatically improve the user experience on steemit.com by enabling users to ensure that the visitors to their blog see only high quality comments.

Open Source

As always, the fact that both steemit.com and Steem are open source ensures that if anyone does not like how the information stored on the blockchain is displayed, they can easily launch their own version of the site, or use one of the many alternative user interfaces that already exist.

But what do you think? This is a feature that is intended to improve the user experience on steemit.com, so if you don’t think it will do that, be sure to vote “NO” in the comment section below.

When SMT Tho?!

Since we know people will say it, implementing this feature is trivial and will not delay any ongoing development efforts. That ease of implementation is a consequence of our Hivemind software which was developed by @roadscape (a/k/a “Hive”) and makes it extremely easy to alter how user interfaces interpret data stored on the blockchain.

If you'd like to learn more about the progress we've been making on SMTs, be sure to check out the recent post by Steemit Blockchain Engineer @gerbino.

The Poll!

But we digress! This post is about whether or not we should expand the “Mute” function on steemit.com.

Leave a comment starting with “YES” if you believe that when you Mute another user that their comments should be hidden from your blog for other Steem users.

Leave a comment stating only “NO” if you believe that when you Mute another user that their comments should remain visible to the visitors of your blog even if you have Muted them.

Don't hesitate to leave any additional feedback, including suggestions for other features you'd like to see added to steemit.com.

The Steemit Team

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  
  ·  2 months ago (edited)

Absolutely not.
Plagiarists, identity thieves, or other fraudsters will mute comments from anyone calling them out on their actions.
This means the @steemcleaners and @cheetah efforts would be useless, so you could say goodbye to them.

The appropriate reaction to comments one does not like is downvoting them.

A better solution to "the problem" is user opt-in mute lists that are community maintained. A community should be able to publish a list of accounts they mute. A user can opt-in to using this list, or the set union of multiple lists they subscribe to.
If one has ever used adblocking, it would function like this -- lists one subscribes to to enjoy a curated experience.

What about a whitelist for specific accounts? Opt-in lists are flexible but it would be a big effort to maintain reasonable lists across the 1000's of blogs. And frontends still have the challenge of selecting which one(s) should be default -- since the default view (say, for a non-logged-in user) should not highlight toxic comments to a reasonable extent.

In addition to a long tail, it seems like some users have a tendency to harass specific authors. It may only be an issue on certain blogs and not globally. Giving authors some power to moderate their blog greatly distributes the responsibility.

Yes this is much better

yeah

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

the default view (say, for a non-logged-in user) should not highlight toxic comments to a reasonable extent

Would seem to be addressed by:

The appropriate reaction to comments one does not like is downvoting them.

Given that consensus downvoted comments are hidden or at least end up at the bottom of the stream.

Downvoting to hide comments only works if you are a relatively high SP user. Also, reward disagreement and content visibility are separate concerns which are bundled in the current system.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

It works even if you have low SP, if others agree with you and concur with your downvote by also downvoting. We see that in practice quite a bit when it is clear that content is abusive. Maybe we'll see even more of it after HF21.

I believe you are sightly misunderstanding my point re. reward disagreement and downvotes. I'm not suggesting that the issue here is reward disagreement on the comment itself, but on the post, and the comments are a way to discuss it. If the poster has unilateral control (including ability to suppress opposing views) over the comments, then it obstructs the ability of everyone to assess reward-worthiness. This is precisely the issue with @cheetah and @steemcleaners but I don't think it stops there; any critical opinions are potentially important and allowing the poster to unilaterally hide them is dangerous.

The suggestion to downvote the comments is purely for visibility, but done in a way that requires stakeholder consensus for the comment to be hidden and stay hidden. IMO this is the most sensible approach when comments, particularly critical ones, may weigh on stakeholders' assessment of the post.

I suppose it is true that the two concerns are currently bundled, and they could conceivably be unbundled (allowing stakeholders to vote separately on visibility and rewards) but that would certainly make things a lot more complicated and probably confusing. As things stand now when you downvote content that isn't being rewarded, or minimally so, that is implicitly for visibility, and upvotes on currently-hidden comment is also mostly for visibility (to vote in favor of restoring it).

If it's plain to see who was muted, and if "Reveal all" was a sticky setting, isn't this a trivial change for anyone concerned about hidden opinions?

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

There is a difference between one person being concerned about hidden opinions and the systemic effect of posters being able to unilaterally hide opinions from most of the readers. Defaults are powerful and there is a good chance that if the default is not showing, the most people won't ever see. That has a systemic effect on the nature of consensus, and not just an effect on individuals.

That being said, of course, these options are on a continuum. It is clearly better to have an easy place to click to see hidden comments than to have to go and dig through a chain explorer, try to find criticism in different posts altogether, or use some alternate interface. I'm still uncomfortable with the unilateral nature of it. A blog that participates in a shared reward pool is not the same as a personally-owned blog that is standalone, and I'm not sure that the same model of unilateral control by the blogger over conversations should carry over.

BTW since you brought up the issue of downvoting for reward and downvoting for visiblity being bundled, why are you proposing to bundle muting? I don't think it really makes a lot of sense. What I don't want to see is distinct from what I might want to hide from readers of my blog. Bundling them would seem to degrade the value of both. I might decline to mute someone I would prefer to mute because I have no intent to hide their comments from others, or I might decline to mute for hiding because I personally want to see it even if I think it detracts from my blog if displayed there. These are really quite distinct.

I've taken a look at how other platforms handle muting and blocks/mutes are generally just applied to your own posts (well, also prevents mentions/DMs). I can block someone on Twitter and they can't respond to me but I can still see their comments elsewhere (as well as view their feed). This also happens to be more efficient for the backend. For the sake of simplicity and efficiency, my preference would be for a user's mutes to be applied only to the discussion threads a user starts, and no longer across the site. This gives the author more control over what kind of discussion they want to highlight, at the cost of having to see comments by the same user on other parts of the site. IMO it would be a net gain.

As for using comments to discuss reward disagreement, it's convenient but not a guaranteed ability. There's a disable_comments option in comment_options which doesn't allow anyone to comment. I don't agree this was a good idea, but it's one way ability to comment on a specific thread is already not a guarantee.

It's hard to have any control over basic ordering in your own discussions as a normal-staked user. You can try to flag junk but there are a lot of users who can override your preferences by force, and this is often done not to bring light to valid criticisms, but rather to "mess" with the author.

On this continuum is also the option to whitelist certain accounts, like community-supported bots fighting plagiarism. Listing the muted comment authors in order of highest SP to lowest would be an interesting way to display the most interesting mutes first. Users would see patterns and if they were engaged in the site long enough I'm sure they would explore the muted side of discussions.

A large proportion of users come to the site just one time. Regardless, the impression anyone gets from the discussion may determine if they see any value in engaging further. An unordered mix of spam and harassment among the discussion may likely increase the echo chamber effect. It's just not welcoming.

The appropriate reaction to comments one does not like is downvoting them ...

... Depending on how 'big' their author is, right?

yes exactly.
You will really think as "normal" (small) user if you downvote a whale … in every case if you have brain.

I disagree. Plagiarists, identity thieves or other fraudsters should not be a excuse to take away the right of regular users to mute and hide unwantes comments. Its time to stop letting those very few people hold everyone else hostage.

Downvotes are still visible and can easily be checked.

Posted using Partiko Android

I think the case could be made that 'the right of regular users to mute and hide unwantes comments' should only apply on rewards-declined content. Otherwise, the rewards are coming from a shared rewards pool and the user doesn't have sole ownership over it.

'the right of regular users to mute and hide unwantes comments' should only apply on rewards-declined content. Otherwise, the rewards are coming from a shared rewards pool and the user doesn't have sole ownership over it.

Id argue that the reward pool has nothing to do with the content ownership. The reward pool does not enter into the intellectual or creative property of the content in any way.

This is a frontend issue in my mind and thus not subject to any inherent mechanic or attribute Steem has as a blockchain since the steem blockchain cannot and never will be able to deal with such specific questions of content property or human interaction.
This is the next layer where community consensus and application ownership are being discussed.
As Steemit.inc says in the post, its their call what to implement, if someone else wants to create a frontend with their own rules they can....

All that being said, i support this change.
Do i think its marginal? YES.
Do i think there are other far more important things to think about?
YES.
Do i think the Steem community is very small and the loudest members of the community fall into one extremely narrow political worldview and that it would be extremely hard to get a objective, unbiased, thought out response from them that isnt subject to the echo chamber, aggressive mentality that stems from the disdain of the mainstream social media equivalents?
Absolutely YES.

But as the question stands alone. It depends how you do it. If you do it right and watch for all the "leaks", this is a superior option to the one we have now and i support it.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

the reward pool does not enter into the intellectual or creative property of the content in any way.

Yes of course that is true. Property of the content itself is a separate matter to rewarding it out of the common reward pool. Being able to reply (and not being blocked by the poster) as to why content may be more or less worthy of rewards is an important process. The points about @cheetah and @steemcleaners are a subset of this but any stakeholder may have valuable information about why the post may not be worthy of rewards, and letting the poster unilaterally hide that seems problematic.

Posters can always downvote comments they don't like but then it becomes a community decision (by others voting as well) whether those are hidden, which seems right to me when those comments are discussing the posts value or lack thereof for reward purposes.

As Steemit.inc says in the post, its their call what to implement, if someone else wants to create a frontend with their own rules they can....

Certainly true. I'm giving my view on what seems best for the integrity of the reward pool and avoiding abuses, which is something they very much care about, as evidenced by both quoting of @anyx's comments in their follow-on post as well as their work on EIP in HF21.

If we are going to move away from a community reward pool as some have suggested, then it becomes less of an issue and the discussion threads can reasonably start to be viewed as the private domain of the blogger to filter and moderate as they see fit. But until and unless that happens (which isn't the case now or in the imminent HF21) I don't believe that should be the case.

!dramatoken

Thanks for being on this side, the wannabe royalty here is off their chain, imo.

Being able to reply (and not being blocked by the poster) as to why content may be more or less worthy of rewards is an important process.

Sure. I agree, at the blockchain level. But we are here discussing an option that is absolutely and undeniably available to Steemit.inc to do with as they wish. Im saying that them extending that choice to the creators in the community is a great addition that people should applaud
Giving a part of the power Steemit.inc has over Steemit to the content creator is a positive thing. This is a matter of social media governance that would be extended to the creator.
Why do we want Steemit.inc to father us? Here they are offering us power and most of the people here.. i think 100 out of 120 are saying:

No we do not want that power, we dont want that freedom!

That is supremely confusing to me.

My thought process is very simple:
You are willing to give us more power on your platform??? I will take it!
Why in the world would i say: No! We shouldnt have this choice! Only Steemit.inc should!

The points about @cheetah and @steemcleaners are a subset of this but any stakeholder may have valuable information about why the post may not be worthy of rewards, and letting the poster unilaterally hide that seems problematic.

I just see that as a marginal thing compared to the offered. There are a huge number of ways to ensure abuse would be countered. The cheetah comment is really a minuscule thing and i know for a fact that steemcleaners are doing a poor and calculative job of fighting abuse. I mean @anyx will probably admit that openly if you ask him.

Downvotes could be made more visibile like on Steempeak, blog posts can always be made about the abuse, even abuse fighters blacklists could be used to take away features like this one from blacklisted creators which would give SFR, Steemcleaners more legitimacy and make them a bigger factor on the platform by giving them power over front end features. That is a big deal.

This would imo benefit everyone expect the harassers and trolls.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

But we are here discussing an option that is absolutely and undeniably available to Steemit.inc to do with as they wish

Yes and for the second and last time I'm giving my opinion on whether and under what conditions it is beneficial to the platform to do that.

If they didn't want our opinions they wouldn't even be making these posts, they would just deploy whatever features they want and that would be that.

You are willing to give us more power on your platform??? I will take it!

This is exactly the sort of mindset that results in people self-voting and vote-selling to the detriment of any value the platform might have in terms of content discovery or incentivized growth. It is a myopic view that puts ones own short term interests ahead of the success of Steem. The end result is you're able to take advantage of the freedom of all these great options made available to you but it won't matter because Steem will continue circling the drain until it eventually enters it.

I'm more interested in looking at the systemic effects and whether they are overall good or bad for the platform, and I don't think this is unconditionally good. Apparently a lot of other people don't either.

Some features somewhat like this can be usefully offered without doing more harm than good but the reality is more nuanced than just "give maximum power to content creators". There has to be a balance.


You've got DRAMA!

To view or trade DRAMA go to steem-engine.com.

So, in other words, dig themselves an even bigger hole by muting their accuser? Warn them that if they mute your bots, they'll get in even more trouble.

You guys don't have enough SP to deal with the levels of mega-spam this feature is intended to address.

"The appropriate reaction to comments one does not like is downvoting them."

If you are an whale maybe yes, but if you are an small user and have to fear, that the whale whome you downvote will react and downvote you and maybe "destroy" your account (means f.e. bring your reputation under 0) you better don't downvote.

This is the question here, that accounts who have enough Steempower can do what they want and only the small user are affected.

Concur.

Furthermore, this option can create an opportunity for a spammer to conceal their activity intentionally.

All they need to do is piss someone off enough to mute them and then it's open season in their comment section.

Additional, we want the lay users reporting up abuse they notice and this feature will reduce that likelihood.

Imo the consequences outweigh the benefit.

Posted using Partiko Android

Not really Anthony.

It can be set up so scammers cant hide their activities.
You can introduce the community blacklist for scammers that forbids them to use this option.
Since Steemit.inc has delegated a million steem to @steemcleaners. You could basically dismiss this feature to any steemcleaners downvoted authors.
Actually implement the abuse response system into the steemit frontend and give abuse fighters legitimacy and power to remove features.

This change would be empowering to everyone. It just depends on how you do it.

Id keep downvotes still visible. And downvotes are really what matters.
You wouldnt be able to hide abuse.. Not really.

Greetings, @anthonyadavisii! This comment is part of the SteemFlagRewards Counterflag Healing program. You are set to receive 100% beneficiary rewards on this comment. If you would like to support this initiative, please consider a delegation to @neutralizer, @randohealer, or the @steemflagrewards main account. Thank you for flagging abuse!

Quick Delegation Links

50 SP 100 SP 500 SP 1000 SP

Greetings, @neutralizer! This comment is part of the SteemFlagRewards Counterflag Healing program. You are set to receive 100% beneficiary rewards on this comment. If you would like to support this initiative, please consider a delegation to @neutralizer, @randohealer, or the @steemflagrewards main account. Thank you for flagging abuse!

Quick Delegation Links

50 SP 100 SP 500 SP 1000 SP

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

yes I think it will be necessary to do this

Maybe that would be an option, but everybody can create an account and call it "antiabuse" or whatever. There should be a consensus about, which accounts were accepted by the community for having special rights. Also the actions of these 'special' accounts should still be controllable by the STEEM community.

NO

Users should be able to decide who they want to see, not what other users ought to see.

Silencing critics isn’t something that should be entertained on a “censorship-resistant” and “decentralized” platform. It’s only one of two selling points you actually have for social media users in the first place.

Users should be able to decide who they want to see, not what other users ought to see.

👍 Exactly!! 👍

I also agree :)

A big YES.

Muting comments gives the creator power. It adds choice. This change would allow creators more ownership over their content and more power over their content.

This is a complete must that elliminates stupidity ww have been seeing with comment spam these last months.

This is a huge improvement and has nothing to do with censorship. It has to do with content ownership and creator empowerment.

This change would allow creators more ownership over their content and more power over their content.

Their content is not affected by comments. Their ownership of their content is not changed by commentary.

This is a complete must that elliminates stupidity ww have been seeing with comment spam these last months.

There's always a noble reason for introducing these features. But that's not how they're typically applied. There's no reason why one user ought to render another user invisible to me if I have not muted them. You talk about choice, but you're denying me my choice to see that user's comments.

It has to do with content ownership and creator empowerment.

Any creator can mute someone they don't want to see. You're OK with extending that into a classic example of silencing critics...shutting down debate...by making critical commentary invisible to other users with the click of a button. At the very least, I should have the option to view what the blog "owner" doesn't want me to see. I can make my own choices about whether or not that commentary is valuable or if the user is a problem.

These are public forums. You don't "own" public discourse. If you want private conversations and a safe space to communicate, there are plenty of options for that. When you start shutting down critical voices - or merely creating the ability to do so - you start venturing into censorship territory, which is the antithesis of what Steem claims to be. Don't blame "spamming" for the desire to control what others are able to view. Mute them, but give other users of the platform the option to see what they want to see on that platform.

Loading...

You guys are motherfucking clueless morons. That's all I have to say.

yeah, them even asking this question about muting really has me wondering if they even know the steem community and where they even got this idea.

No!

It would require a small amount of extra coding, but you could implement this as follows:

  1. a user setting for posters that specifies whether the user wants this muting to potentially take place on his posts.
  2. a user setting for readers that specifies whether the reader wants to honor this mute setting on posts he reads.

Then default the user setting to honoring the mute setting on posts he reads (and probably default the poster setting to do the muting on his posts).

That's a very valid point. And it works mostly this way on https://steempeak.com :D

Selection_089.png

That's an excellent Idea. but the first should not be there. a user shouldn't have setting for posters that specifies whether the user wants this muting to potentially take place on his posts. It should be readers or curators decide are the comments are abusive or spamming. the second point is excellent and even it can modified as

give muting option to readers not content creators.

But still people create bots to mute the comments on their posts :(

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

NO... Kinda

The end user / the consumer should be in charge of their decision.
Happy if you want to copy this system from https://steempeak.com
... I'm sure @asgarth can help you out.
It seems to have solved most issues people were having and users seem to be completely positive about it to date.

image.png

As you can see you could set your condensor to default use the mute settings of the author.
BUT, there's an important of this solution... when you're on a post there's always the ability for the user to make a spot decision to see those "muted" / hidden comments if you really want to.

NO.

Posted using Partiko Android

I've seen that @jarvie already answered this poll, but I'm going to write my 2 cents too. From my point of view the post author should have more control over his blog, but the reader must be able to choose if he wants to follow the author preferences or not. Also it should be always possible to view all the comments easily, without leaving the post itself.

This is how it works on https://steempeak.com. Not going to share a screenshot because I've seen that it's already in a comment :)

NO.
In general I don't agree with censoring comments on your own Blog, because the authors content is now open in the public for discussion and controversial opinions should be always visible.
But I would like to see a feature where you can mute somebody else comments, but not for free!
This service should cost you some Steem, if you really consider to mute somebody else on your Blog Post. To be specific I would like to see that Steem gets "burned" for the ability to mute, and the more users you "mute" on your Blog the more you have to pay!
This would prevent that somebody "mutes" everyone that disagree on his posts, because it costs him Steem. And by doing so he would burn Steem and the whole community profits.
I really would like to see some "sinks" as @aggroed always says to be implemented in your frontend Steemit.com. And this Service "to mute comments" could be your first of many "sinks" for Steem :-)

Nah. The content creator should have power over their own content.
Muting comments is a statement made by the creator and it should be their right. Its up tonyou to take it as you wish.

Posted using Partiko Android

Would you consider to pay for this service - burn Steem for muting comments?
I think if this feature is for free than censoring comments is going to be a problem in the long run.

Posted using Partiko Android

No. Thats ridiculous.

This is a great idea, why? Well what they want to accomplish is to give "people" (persons) like Nike, Coke and such more incentive to come on here, as well for many professionals, incentives that are very lackluster as it is, and this would accommodate them as no way in hell will Nike deal with someone like me challenging them over their Vietnam slave plantations under any posts (or comments), same with Coke and their "product", but if they could effectively censor me, it will be fine methinks, they might even be glad to pay for the returns that the exposure will give them. Think about it, why aren't almost ANY professionals coming here, other than their shit stinking 8 ways from Sunday and plenty of degenerates who derive joy from pointing it out..

Their own content, which doesn't mean anyone else's content, like comments. If I go to a website and use their comment section, irrelevant of what their "tosc are, that is my content, not theirs, ever. The content belongs to the author, to you, that doesn't extend to comments. By your own logic, if I mute the author of the post I comment under I too should have the option to hide their responses to my comments.

Nah. The content creator should have power over their own content.

Content creator mah balls. Over their own content, lmao. Logic, reasoning, evades you, that's what I take your nonsense as.

😂

Posted using Partiko Android

The irony is that you currently have me muted but you clearly don't care for that option, but if this was implemented, my comment would be completely invisible regardless that you don't even use steemit yet here you are offering your suggestions for them, but the most important thing though is your "response", which beautifully illustrates exactly the concern that so many people in this post warned against: silencing disagreement. You think you can fake laugh as if there is anything to ridicule about what I said, but there isn't, and it reinforces how elusive simple logic/reasoning is with you, when you could have been a decent fellow and responded in kind, afforded me the same courtesy I did you, but then that would mean actually considering what I said and the validity of my conclusion and i don't expect that an obvious idiot, someone clearly so stupid that they said "Nah(yeah, so cool and nonchalant). The content creator should have power over their own content." when they weren't talking at all about the said creator's content, but other people's content to act other than an idiot who "laughs" at reason and critical thinking, O sweet beautiful irony, forever an inch out of the hypocrite's mental capacity.

!dramatoken
Give 'em hell, baah!

I give them my honest thoughts, I have no reason to pander to nonsense or beat around the bush about what I regard them as, what they do with it is entirely on them, and if they want to ridicule me I'll give them the same no holds bared attitude.

Lol, most folks are blind to the contradictions you illuminate for them.
Their denial of the facts tells them to get angry to win.
Their cognitive dissonance bell goes ding, ding, ding.

You really need to get some help man. The excessive aggression coming off of you signals a mental instability.
I do use Steemit except when on my phone and youre not muted though i should mute you.

See the majority of people dont mute opinions or dissagrements in arguments.
They mute people like you that are hostile, that throw around insults and ad hominems.

You are the exact reason why this SHOULD be implemented because you not only defile the comment section of the authors post with your conflict seeking attitude and shameless behavior but you act as a detterant to civil discussion hijacking the comment section and allienating civil individuals that want no part of it.
Mutinf comments on someones post gives the content creator the power to stop this kind of behavior and facilitate the kind of discussion they want on their content.

Their choice to do so is their statement of what they want to see disscused on their post.

If you can create a front end that does that, and steemit.inc is obviously considering this option, if you accept that a front end can control what is seen on their site, then why is it so hard to understand that extending that power beyond Steemit.inc to the community is a good thing?

Im for more power to the people and less to organizations.
Its a shame you want to restrict that and not see it happen.

@steemitblog.

Anyways. Get yourself checked out. This aggresion youre showing is not normal.

Posted using Partiko Android

Screenshot_20190729_105834.png

Sorry, clearly you're very confused and a certifiable mental midget. What the fuck were you laughing at again? That's what I thought you whack ass idiot. Lol

Preaching about aggression lmao. That is rich you idiot.

And now you get muted. 😂

Weak ass, bitch ass, ass ass.

Haha. Insults...

The last resort of insecure people with a crumbling position trying to appear confident.

Have a great day. 😘

Posted using Partiko Android

The other really hilarious thing, you think that my comments defile the content, but as the overwhelmingly vast majority disagree with this idiot suggestion, they will surely agree that what someone says about something doesn't mean that it's true, correct or what everyone else thinks, unless they do, and then it's not "defilement" to anyone but the idiots who begged to be "defiled" by opening their idiot holes.

😂😂😂

Just had to read this. Now youre on mute.

Posted using Partiko Android

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

Tell me something, is it an ad hominem simply because I made remarks about your capacities? Lol.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

"he's a retard, he threw gasoline on a camp fire"

That's an ad hominem correct?

What about this

"the content creator should have control over other people's content posted under their content" which is the clearly communicated idea that you undoubtedly tried to articulate but failed miserably, and is remarking on the irony/hypocrisy of that foolish idea, and how stupid it is, an ad hominem, or a valid case and point? Lmao.

Big-dog-hits-small-dog-in-face-with-wagging-tail-2 (1).gif


You have DRAMA!

To view or trade DRAMA go to steem-engine.com.

This is a cool idea

YES

YES PLEASE! I & Many Other have raised this concern, mostly a Block Feature is What we had in Mind, but if I get to not see people who harass me on my blog with this feature, it's equally good. I believe as content creators we should have the right to exclude some people from our space if they bring about negative energy all the time!

Thanks for the thoughtful response! We hear you loud and clear!

Of course you do, you only listen to the echoes, derp,...

@steemitblog,
Yes, this is better. If we mute it's mute for everyone who is dealing with our blog posts. Yeah that's better!

Cheers~

No, each user should decide only for what they see.

And one feature would be to give the USER the ability to say they want to trust the mutes of the author. SteemPeak has done that.

And I'm assuming that it defaults to trusting the mutes of the author (especially for users who are not logged in) @jarvie?

Posted a picture and more info below in a post. But yeah default is on and everyone seems to be A OK with it because everyone gets to decide for themselves.

I actually love having it turned on. But i'm totally willing to click to see if the author muted someone... it's not like it's forever forgotten and gone. For the most part I consume content of the people I follow and I follow people for a reason and I trust them to clean their place up. But if i'm snooping around in new places i may click to see the hidden comments.

Anyway yeah it's been a really widely accepted feature with no issues because of the balance and the final decision is always on the end user.

Actually you start to realize just how rarely the mute function is presently being used (at least where I usually lurk)

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

YES. Users need more control over their own blogs.

I would also like to see the number of witness votes per account lowered from 30 to 10 or 5, to better decentralize the leadership.

NO. That is to preserve the helpful efforts by real persons revealing scams and those by @steemcleaners, @cheetah, and other reporting bots. Otherwise, the author will be able to mute such bots and even real persons to get away with their scams.

yes, agreed.

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment
  ·  2 months ago (edited)

NO, @anyx said it best : "Plagiarists, identity thieves, or other fraudsters will mute comments from anyone calling them out on their actions.
This means the @steemcleaners and @cheetah efforts would be useless, so you could say goodbye to them.

The appropriate reaction to comments one does not like is downvoting them."

Also why not dpoll ?

why not dpoll

Probably because they don’t use Steem enough to realise it exists. That’s just the cynical me talking.

No - this feature would do more harm than good and only serve to make steemit the same as any other social media where people can create cosy echo chambers for themselves!

I would actually like more data instead of less so people can make uo their own minds with all the facts and not just people able to shape narratives!

If you don’t like what someone has to say you can ignore it yourself but that doesn’t mean they are wrong or don’t have valid points! What some might consider harassment others might consider common sense

Posted using Partiko iOS

No

This is for the other front ends to do not steemit.

No

Absolutely NOT

Posted using Partiko Android

NO

This is no different than shadow-banning on Twitter and Facebook, and has led to a whole host of issues. Not the least of which is creating echo-chambers where dissent is impossible.

No.

Unless detractors are allowed to speak up publicly the truth gets hidden.

NO

Your balance is below $0.3. Your account is running low and should be replenished. You have roughly 10 more @dustsweeper votes. Check out the Dustsweeper FAQ here: https://steemit.com/dustsweeper/@dustsweeper/dustsweeper-faq

NO

NO

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

I don't believe that this is a question where you can only answer with yes or no.

In the end it's the question why you mute him - there are different reasons and because of this my suggestion would be, that if you mute somebody you can yourself decide if comments in your blog from this user will be visible for all.

Would this be a good solution ?

NO

I'm pretty mixed on this but I think no is the appropriate answer. While this would prevent a lot of trolls it will prevent other engagement too and silence opinions they disagree with pushing into censorship territory. It will also prevent the ability to warn users of scams, abuse, and other things the author may not want to be shown.

I really do appreciate making this a poll rather than just announcing it is happening provided it isn't just done anyway.

Lol, what, do they have a rep for not listening, or something?

No. Imho anyone should decide whom to mute.

NO-For all the reasons @anyx listed.

If you are really all about letting the user control the info they see on their own page then why do I have to have a bunch of featured posts show up in my feed that I have absolutely no interest in from users I choose not to follow?

No,

While I understand the importance of getting rid of spam, harassment, ... the feature will for sure be used to mute specific users simply because their opinions on a specific subject do not conform to the author's ideas.

NO

You should have seriously considered dpoll DAPP. Just got to https://dpoll.xyz and post this. Counting Yes/No would have worked very easily for everyone.

NO.

AS we are giving full ownership for the content for the creator and you should also full rights to readers and curators to share their opinions and comments. This is only leads to the silencing of the critics and reduction of the freedom of speech. Every comment should be visible to anyone to understand the other's perspective on the same content

NO

I am fearing misuse as explained by others despite it can have some good impacts.

No, it seems to be a pointless feature. There are other front ends that have this feature already.

However if you were able to put in a function for users to send #nomute urls (for the cleaners to proove, etc.), similar to ?=nomute or whatever it would be alright, I suppose

Posted using Partiko Android

No

NO!

Posted using Partiko Android

No.

I’d rather leave it up to those who visit my blog and I agree with @anyx that the system could be abused to hide reasonable critiques and policing of bad content.

Posted using Partiko iOS

Hello!

Are you asking this to me? I've proxied all development related decisions to my Witnesses. So shouldn't they need to vote on this? Or do they vote only for Steem related issues and not Steemit - related?

Actually, your handle is very confusing to me. You should have 2 different handles viz. steemitblog and steemblog to publish updates relevant to respective issues.

Here you're talking about front-end and SMT in the same post. This increases the confusion between Steem and Steemit.

No

NO. Enhancing the mute feature is something trivial, alouds censorship and make steemit one step closer to centraliced platform. 👎

We want and we need Steemit's ads on the web, more collaborations and of course, SMT!!! 👍

Posted using Partiko Android

No, We must not take the step into censorship ever.

What I really want is that when someone give a flag should leave a comment saying why he did it, stupid bots always ruining our network.

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

bots always ruining our network.

Most of the comments a newbie will see are the "you won x award" and such. There's no way to stop them and they comment on every single post you make. So, yeah... a way to mute them would be useful.

  ·  2 months ago Reveal Comment

YES.

And I can only say yes as of recent. Some trolls just never stop. That alone makes me want a definite mute feature.

I have only muted 2 or 3 people ever. I know that my followers would love for those 2-3 people to not be shown on my blog leaving nasty comments they benefit nobody.

No

Why should we decide for others to see other comment? Then it’s no social network any more.

If you can’t take different opinions, then internet isn’t a place for you.

NO

NO

No

Posted using Partiko Android

NO.

“NO” I believe that when we Mute another user their comments should remain visible to the visitors of our blog even if we have Muted them.

Why? well, it is supremely simple indeed. Because if we (or whoever else) are able to actually censor and prevent other people to read and follow the ongoing sequential developing of a heated thread debate...

Who the hell is gonna know then:

¿Where the "Naked Truth" really is? & ¿Which of the interlocutors along the discussion was right?

Don't mess up with these 'thangs' kids.

Let the free awareness flow as it is due!!

I absolutely agree with you @por500bolos

I wonder where did this idea came from in the first place.

Yours
Piotr

No, leave it alone.

NO

So you going to decide on 50 opinions of random people who accidentally stumbled on this post and participate in the pool?

Odds are, they already decided. This is just for show.

You're right. We saw this same trick with the downvote button.

No. I think it would be misused. People who plagiarise or otherwise abuse Steem would hide comments from those calling them out. That said, I can see valid uses for it, but it's better to not censor.

NO

Because this is ultimately the wrongheaded approach to solving the problem.

I don't want a spammer to have the right to invade my personal space. But I also don't want to give the power to decide what I see to someone who has written the original post just because they've written the original post. I don't always read things written by people I agree with. I don't always read things written by people that other people agree with. I don't necessarily trust either party to make decisions about what I see for me.

Ideally, the default would be NO and I could decide individually, by account, whether I trust them to have muted discussion in their comments appropriately. Some people I trust to make that kind of decision. Some people I definitely don't trust to make that kind of decision.

Ultimately, the decision of who I trust and who I don't trust should never be up to the platform because it's the platform's job to execute my will as regards to what I want to see, not to execute somebody's will on what I want to see.

NO

NO

I have seen a lot of GOOD users posting comments under posts created by BAD users or abusers. It helped me to make my own decisions on who is who. I would like to keep that right. 🧐

Flag feature should be fixed instead.

NO.

We have the option to up- and downvote content we like and dislike respectively.

A mute option as discussed goes against the idea of free speech.

No.

Why don't enable a KYC feature for every user like years ago Steem Verify did? I think that this is a great feature to avoid spam, abuse, hate speach and another millions of conflicts that happens here.

Posted using Partiko Android

Nothing is stopping any 3rd party from offering KYC and an interface that only shows content posted to Steem by KYCed users. That's why we will never implement it ourselves, because we believe that steemit.com should be open to everyone. In addition, you should be extremely careful with who you give your personal identity information to. I don't know of this service, but I would be highly, HIGHLY cautious about who I give my personal information to and would suggest anyone reading this comment to think extremely long and hard about using ANY service that requests this information. We will NOT.

Yes

NO

  ·  2 months ago (edited)

A solution like the one implemented by SteemPeak seems the right one, giving any steemian the choice on how he or she sees or not the muted comments on a blog. By the avalanche of "NOs", seems like the setting should be by default set to not following the mute options of the blog author. Still wondering what should happen by default for visitors.

Solid NO from me.

No.

Muting / posting rights and restrictions should be handled by the "communities" hardfork. Each community can then set its own rules for how to handle spam / comment advertising / abuse etc.

NO

(but something else might work better)

I'd prefer to see something somewhat like the irredeemables list, but in a decentralized way. https://github.com/steemit/irredeemables

By that, I mean individuals could choose to use the mute lists of other users they trust. This could help improve the user experience here while keeping the decentralized nature of Steem social media and only allowing "censorship" via consensus and individual user choice.

Example:

Person A is sick of seeing so much crap on Steemit such as spammy comments, abusive comments, etc. They want a solution.

Person B, C, and D are trusted members of the community. Maybe they are witnesses. Maybe they are leaders within their social circle. Maybe they have a lot of real followers. Maybe they've done a good job of curating real relationships on Steemit, and they've created their own mute lists for improving the user experience here.

Person A trusts B, C, and D and in their settings, chooses to use these mute lists to improve their experience.

You could also display a list of the most used mute lists. Maybe Person B is trusted by the most number of people to create a good experience and not unnecessarily censor people. When a new user joins Steemit, they should be given a step-by-step walkthrough of how Steemit works which includes asking if they'd like to select one or more mute lists (while also explaining the censorship-resistant nature of blockchain social media and how nothing is actually "censored", just hidden from view).

Ideally, the results of these mute lists would only hide (not fully mute) comments, similar to what happens now with a downvoted comment. When they view the comment, it would show which list the poster was included on and who maintains that list with a simple option right there to remove that list from your selection of mute lists.

The "most used mute list" could have some Sybil attack issues, but that could be figured out over time as a community.

NO

I have nothing to hide, I would like to see everything written about me and I like others to see it as well. You understand this way who is your enemy and who is your friend. You understand what all people think about you. Maybe there are who want to hide something, that's why they want this option. It's their problem, please leave it as it is, it's the blockchain after all, everything need to be seen. The funny thing that if you impliment this, it will be seen in the blockchain anyway. So, leave it as it is. I think it's better !

YES , is a must need feature, there's too much bot spam every time someone is posting an article. "Your post won x award.", "You've been selected for x,y,zzz reward", "This post was promoted with..." and so on. I find that annoying and it doesn't add any value to the content.