a2k sucks

Let's attack the question from the other side: what is the argument for blocking the reading of content here? What is the alleged benefit for A2K? And it should be about A2K, not the desires of the weak who are looking to be protected from having their ideas (usually their fantasies) challenged ,modern university students for example. Those fools can go to plenty of other places to get what they want, there are already plenty of places who will help the willfully stupid wallow in their delusions.

Let's be better than that.

Please.

0 Replies

maxdancona wrote:

Group think is an issue in Able2know and people are leaving because of a core group here is trying to enforce a set of opinions on issues like woman's rights and atheism.

Please consider this while you are designing the new features.

I strongly express my dissent from this opinion.

Therefore, I hope new features will not take into account the way people are able to express their ideas.

I believe Robert will keep in mind that improvements of the user interface have nothing to do with social, religious or political opinions.

1 Reply

@timur,

Quote:

I believe Robert will keep in mind that improvements of the user interface have nothing to do with social, religious or political opinions

the interface greatly dictates the culture, just look at how much the place changed after the last interface change. Also, one can not run a debate site if one is setting up the place to discourage debate. Robert plans to set up ignorance safety zones. I think that is a mistake. I dont think that environment will appeal to smart open minded people, which are the people that I want to interact with. We already drove away the women, so lets now drive away the open minded too??

No way.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Good threads often live long after the OP leaves. It seems arbitrary to block someone from participating just because the OP ignored them. Everyone else might be interested in their input. I think the ignore feature works perfectly today. I don't have to see people I don't want to see, others can respond if they want to.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Not being able to block interactions one does not want is a much greater threat

Complete bullshit. Interactions by definition take two or more people participating, if one does not want to be part of an interaction the way they go about staying out of an interaction at A2K and everywhere else is by not participating. No help from you is required. All you can do by attempting to fix a problem that does not exist is to **** things up.

So now that we have established either that you have a bad idea or that you are using the word "interaction" incorrectly would you like to try again?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I agree with you on one level Hawkeye (although I sometimes wish you would express your ideas more diplomatically when I agree with them). I think it is funny when someone announces publicly that they have another member on ignore... and then continues to respond. The ignore feature is sometimes used as if it were a tool of aggression. It is pretty easy to end an interaction by simply not responding... I don't see much evidence that this doesn't work.

I don't like the idea of the the technology allowing a member or a group of members to control what other people see. If the technology lets a member ignore users or ideas for themselves that they don't want to see, that is ok (as long as it doesn't shut out users or ideas from the discussion in general).

Smaller moderated communities where a group of members all agree to trust a moderator and a clear set of rules is one way to deal with the problem. That way a group that only wanted to hear their own opinions would have that choice, but those of us who want an open discussion with diverse opinions would be free to do so.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Gotta say the best part of FB (for me) is the block function. Groups are good for some purposes, but blocking is even better.

Blocking, as it works on FB, is more like real life. I don't invite some people to my parties, and they don't know I exist. I like it. People with dissenting opinions? excellent and fun. Assholes? thanks, but I don't need a spare.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Everyone else might be interested in their input.

then someone in that "everyone else" can start a thread/discussion that is open. FB seems to thrive on that kind of range of interaction options. Open discussions, open groups, private groups, closed groups, secret groups ...

I think that's where a choice of communities could work, though A2k will (I think) need a bigger active base for it to work well.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

There are a lot of people in the world you consider "assholes" and some of us have some good ideas that you haven't considered. Labeling people as useless and then completely ignoring anything they have to say is not always a good thing.

Able2know works well when you can get exposed to ideas and points of views that you don't get in private parties.

There already is a Facebook where you get to exclude people who don't agree with you. Able2Know works as something different,This is a really good thing, it means your ideas can get challenged by people you consider "assholes".

The world needs both Facebook and Able2know. There is no reason that they can't co-exist.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

then someone in that "everyone else" can start a thread/discussion that is open. FB seems to thrive on that kind of range of interaction options. Open discussions, open groups, private groups, closed groups, secret groups ...

How many active users does FB have?

How many active users does A2K have?

We already have too little quality content, splitting it amongst many communities run by dictators is a sure road to crap. THis should be obvious.

Robert clearly has not put in enough thought time on this and is in desperate need of our help.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

https://mypeacefulheart.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/its-a-very-important-thing-to-learn-to-talk-to-people-you-disagree-with-pete-seeger.jpg

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

engineer wrote:
Everyone else might be interested in their input.

then someone in that "everyone else" can start a thread/discussion that is open. FB seems to thrive on that kind of range of interaction options. Open discussions, open groups, private groups, closed groups, secret groups ...

But you won't even know they aren't there. It will look like a small community is debating a topic and no one else is interested. I think the difference with FB is that you are controlling your content with FB while you are controlling everyone else's under this proposal. Unless you know that someone who's opinion you value is missing because they are ignored, you don't know to start a new thread to bring them in.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There already is a Facebook where you get to exclude people who don't agree with you.

did you miss this bit of what I said?

ehBeth wrote:

People with dissenting opinions? excellent and fun.

it does appear so

___

if you looked at my A2k ignore list, you'd see that the majority is people whose opinions I agree with but whose mode of expression doesn't work for me.

It's like real life. I'd rather talk to someone with good debate style than someone I agree with but who has spewing as their style. It's why I asked for, and was granted, membership in the conservative group here the last time we had groups.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

But you won't even know they aren't there.

if you haven't blocked them, you'll know they're on A2k, just not in a particular discussion. so start a new discussion.

it's not a big deal.

it's like real life - and A2k now - it's not like there's only one discussion per topic

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You really don't bother reading my posts. You assume what I'm going to say and run with that. Gotta give you points for consistency.

0 Replies

Private communities may have some value. But the beauty of a2k is the inclusiveness of its general forum. I may have never answered a colossus stinker thread, but this seems to be the only place where the stinkers can be febreezed.
Just Google it and you find a2k. I wonder how any colossus aficionados also participate in other discussions. Some must, I'm sure. And, they are welcome, right?

So, keep the general forum. Add the satellites if it pops someone's cork.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

it's like real life - and A2k now - it's not like there's only one discussion per topic

And most of us are annoyed enough when there are 2 or more threads on the same topic going to try to get everyone in the same thread so that we can get a better discussion going and so that our time is not wasted.

Seriously, spitting content on purpose is a numbskull idea.

I also want to point out that Beth is the same person who complained for years about people ruining her peace here, to the extent that she cut her time and talked about going away, but then a light bulb went off and she tried selective engagement. Last month she reported that the effort was working well.

No "avoiding interaction" tools are needed.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

if you looked at my A2k ignore list, you'd see that the majority is people whose opinions I agree with but whose mode of expression doesn't work for me.

I don't know how you draw between people with "dissenting opinions" and people who you call "asshole". "Mode of expression" is an interesting term... does this mean abusive behavior, or something else?

Personal attacks cross a line for me... but even then I am hesitant to label anyone an asshole. I can't think of anyone whose point of view I would want to completely exclude before considering it.

In my experience on Able2know the people who are attacked with labels like "asshole" are singled for their opinions, not for their behavior. The most abusive posts on Able2Know, where people are personally attacked sometimes with vulgar epithets, come from from popular posters with the in crowd who I think you like and support.

I don't think they are on your ignore list.

What good is it to divide the world between "assholes" and "non-assholes"? I don't think this is a healthy way to look at the world, especially if you want to be part of a diverse community.

Gated communities might be a way to stop the level of personal attacks against people whose ideas or mode of expression don't fit in with the core group here. The worse case would be if there are several communities that each thinks all the others are "assholes" and never talk to each other (not that that doesn't describe the world we live in).

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I don't like the idea of the the technology allowing a member or a group of members to control what other people see.

This is not new to technology, if someone doesn't want to talk to you in real life they just don't. They get to walk away and avoid you. You don't get to insist on talking to them anyway. This is a social norm issue and not a technology issue.

2 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I think the difference with FB is that you are controlling your content with FB while you are controlling everyone else's under this proposal.

No, there's no functional difference. This does not "control everyone".

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know