Hiding posts? November 22, 2023 10:47 AM Subscribe

We often say "If you have nothing nice to say, feel free to skip this thread" or "Don't argue with other responses in an Ask MeFi thread", but we don't provide the easiest way people can do this.

Should we have a hide button that users can apply to simply remove posts from view on the blue and green?

(And maybe even remove individual comments from view, but that's an additional step and a slightly separate "should" question.)

posted by splitpeasoup to Feature Requests at 10:47 AM (238 comments total) 12 users marked this as a favorite

Well, in my opinion, no.
It is easy enough to either not click in the first place or to back up and move on.

As for individual comments how would that even work with new comments loading?
posted by calgirl at 11:00 AM on November 22, 2023 [15 favorites]

I think we already have this ability for the US Politics posts, right? I think it does make sense to have a button to hide posts.
posted by mittens at 11:12 AM on November 22, 2023 [2 favorites]

In a similar vein, I wish there was the ability to hide contribution from users who you find rude, triggering, or whose questions on AskMe are particularly irritating. Flagging is good for stuff that violates the guidelines but there are people whose tone or approach to conversation just...does not work for me and I find the moments where I engage there and then realize it are the ones that make me take breaks or leave the site entirely.

I feel like having some flexible filters for the site in general to allow users to hide the small % of the site that might be a source for being argumentative or unhappy would be helpful.
posted by openhearted at 11:36 AM on November 22, 2023 [34 favorites]

“You may keep it all, Frog,” said Toad. “I am going home now to bake a cake.”
posted by zamboni at 11:38 AM on November 22, 2023 [20 favorites]

One option to try: the My MeFi tab is filtered by the tags you enter.

1. Go to My MeFi Preferences.
2. In the Enter a list of your favorite tags separated by spaces: box, enter tags you would expect to find on posts you enjoy.
3. In the Enter a list of excluded tags separated by spaces: box, enter tags you would expect to find on posts you do not enjoy.
4. Click Set Preferences.
5. Browse the My MeFi tab, not the regular "throw everything at me" tab.

For example
1. Go to My MeFi Preferences.
2. Enter "kittens puppies" (with a space between them) in the Enter a list of your favorite tags separated by spaces: box, because you love posts about kittens and/or puppies.
3. Enter "vomit puke" in the Enter a list of excluded tags separated by spaces: box, because you hate posts about upchuck.
4. Click Set Preferences.
5. The My MeFi tab should now show nothing but posts tagged with "kittens" or "puppies" or both, but not if they are also about vomit, so no cat puke posts.
posted by pracowity at 12:38 PM on November 22, 2023 [11 favorites]

The easiest way to do it is to close the tab.
posted by betweenthebars at 2:48 PM on November 22, 2023 [8 favorites]

Likewise in AskMe, the My Ask tab on the right of your screen will let you exclude tags and whole categories. Not as exact as an individual hide-post button, but a nice feature which I often forget exists.

I wish there was the ability to hide contributions from users...
May I discreetly direct your attention to the Mute-a-Filter browser extension? [Chrome, FireFox]
posted by Pallas Athena at 3:03 PM on November 22, 2023 [18 favorites]

+1 for hiding posts, +1 for hiding individual users.
posted by Diskeater at 3:30 PM on November 22, 2023 [10 favorites]

I want to believe people can exercise sound judgement and discretion and simply not click on a thing.

I know that the preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise, but I still believe
posted by kbanas at 3:50 PM on November 22, 2023 [30 favorites]

In one of the contentious metatalk threads this year, someone mentioned in-thread this (Firefox) add-on: Mute-a-Filter. I installed it and have been successfully using it since then. You get an extra button on everyone's profile page that reads "add comment filter"; if you click the button to mute someone, their comments show up for you as a light gray. I can't find the original comment referencing this now and don't know if there are versions for other browsers.
posted by BlueTongueLizard at 5:17 PM on November 22, 2023 [12 favorites]

Came here to post about Mute-a-Filter, so I will just second BlueTongueLizard's recommendation.
posted by Umami Dearest at 5:41 PM on November 22, 2023 [4 favorites]

On one hand, we are already being driven towards a narrow spectrum of opinion by fragmentation of media and algorithms. On the other hand, the user base is small enough these days that a very active commenter with a different vibe can be an impediment to enjoying the site as much as one might. In the spirit of open mindedness, maybe a snooze option would be a good compromise. Not something I would request, maybe something I would use, totally understand if people want an ability to shape what they see, in a perfect world the site would have more users and more activity and it would be easy to ignore the handful who are not so compatible for whatever reason.
posted by snofoam at 6:14 PM on November 22, 2023 [4 favorites]

My MeFi would be great if it could be used with only the negative tag filters. Last time I tried it, it would also remove anything that didn't have one of the favourite tags. I caught myself adding everything I was even slightly interested in in an attempt to make the My MeFi view show all the non-excluded posts, and had to stop myself.
These days I mostly use the recent activity page, and very prolifically add posts that I haven't commented on. It works for keeping up with threads I but still have to check the front page occasionally.

Not clicking on a thread is nice, but doesn't solve the problem of having the post on the screen when checking the front page.
User blocking is a very different issue from thread hiding, but on a social media website like metafilter it should really be there as a standard safety feature, rather than restricted to platforms where someone released a plugin.
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 6:27 PM on November 22, 2023 [7 favorites]

If MeFi ever adds a mute feature for users, I hope it works exactly like Mute A Filter. Have suggested it many times, glad it was already mentioned here! Forever changed for the better how I read the site.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:05 PM on November 22, 2023 [2 favorites]

> I want to believe people can exercise sound judgement and discretion and simply not click on a thing.

Based on the last figures we've seen, about 500 more people every year are exercising their judgement and discretion by no longer clicking on Metafilter at all.

It's worth questioning whether the site's dwindling resources are best spent on further catering to users who find themselves unable to control their emotions when anything they dislike appears on their screen.

Is there a way to hide all the posts about that? Other than the one 500 users a year have already found, that is.
posted by automatronic at 8:47 PM on November 22, 2023 [38 favorites]

My MeFi would be great if it could be used with only the negative tag filters.

I've been using My MeFi only with negative tag filters for a while and it gives me everything that doesn't have a negative tag as far as I can tell.

(That said, I think it would be nice if I could also hide individual posts that stress me out instead of having to scroll past them every time I want to look at the front page. Sometimes posts are stressful for reasons that don't correlate well to tags. So I either get overzealous about adding negative tags, or I avoid metafilter's front page for a week or two until the stressful thing drops off the front page.)
posted by creepygirl at 10:13 PM on November 22, 2023 [6 favorites]

I'd love a button to hide stupid/offensive posts.

I really don't want to go through the contact form and explain why it's a shitty post, I just want it gone.
posted by ryanrs at 12:05 AM on November 23, 2023 [9 favorites]

I, too, would like a button that mutes stupid/offensive/annoying people. Maybe they could be installed at birth.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 2:09 AM on November 23, 2023 [10 favorites]

I want to believe people can exercise sound judgement and discretion and simply not click on a thing.

Sometimes people on the Internet ask the same kind of questions ad nauseum, or continually ask the wrong question, or have a hidden motive: trends that are only clear when you view their posting history because the individual posts aren't THAT noticeable in isolation.

(I'm not talking about anyone in particular, and I'm thinking about posters on sites like reddit & babycenter as well. It's a pretty common thing.)

I don't notice/memorize people's usernames easily so I've got got in the past. That is, you spend some time & thought on a person and it's annoying to realize later that it was a complete waste of time or worse, played into something.

It's not a big deal to me, just mildly irritating sometimes. I'd consider it a small quality of life feature to flag/mark/grey out posts by username.
posted by Baethan at 7:17 AM on November 23, 2023 [8 favorites]

Is this the right place to say "Happy Thanksgiving" to those that need it ?

Happy Thanksgiving.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 7:31 AM on November 23, 2023 [13 favorites]

I'd love a button to hide stupid/offensive posts.

Yes, I would like a Begone! button for posts, even for harmless posts that I just don't want to look at. It seems like it would be an easy thing to implement, so I guess it's against site philosophy. Probably the same reason there's no unfavoriting, only favoriting.
posted by pracowity at 8:02 AM on November 23, 2023

I wonder if a MeFi moderator has a statistic showing how many MeFi users have already blocked posts, comments, users, etc., from being displayed on their screens.

As I understand it, the MeFi site allows users to block certain things from showing up on their screens. MeFi has generated interest in Content Warning labels. MeFi also has site guidelines.

I think scrolling past a post I might find troubling is on me. However, if being able to avoid seeing such an objectionable post makes a user's day any better, then why not give them that option? I suppose blocking certain users may also be desirable to some, even if it seems to fragment citations in a discussion.

My concern is only with a button that allows MeFites to block what I see. Also, though the topic has not come up in this thread, I support that a Downvote Button is not a good idea. Our overworked and underpaid moderators already do an excellent job of applying site regulations to the more unruly of my fellow MeFites.

I'm impressed with users (such as Baethan) who research a username before replying to a comment or question. I've not been inspired to do that. But I also have spent half an hour thinking through and composing a response to something I read, only to delete it and click on to something else.

Nth Happy Thanksgiving. This is a time to cherish a gathering of friends and loved ones. If that phrase has become shopworn, this season is a good time to revisit it. The shorter our list of blessings, the more we ought to cherish it.
posted by mule98J at 8:13 AM on November 23, 2023 [1 favorite]

I think it's very much worth separating the discussion out in terms of what exactly people are trying to hide:

Manually hide individual front-page posts
Manually hide individual comments
Automatically hide activity from a given user
Automatically hide posts with a given tag

All of these have different effects on the community and may have different degrees of technical difficulty.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 8:24 AM on November 23, 2023 [3 favorites]

"Hide" also isn't the only option: there's also
a. emphasizing, such as by adding flags, and
b. de-emphasizing, such as by fading

Emphasis would work well for tags and usernames (to help people notice that they probably don't want to open a post) and de-emphasis would work well for posts (especially to help people skip comments within a post)

I don't research anyone, I just see other people with better memories referring to history and have "? oh :/" moments. If I looked at people's history I wouldn't get got! That'd be a huge time suck though, so, I don't bother
posted by Baethan at 8:37 AM on November 23, 2023 [1 favorite]

No, hiding threads is better because if you keep shoving it in my face, I will feel compelled to go shit up that thread.

(I'm not saying that's the best response. I'm saying that's why I want to be able to hide threads.)
posted by ryanrs at 9:46 AM on November 23, 2023 [1 favorite]

Based on the last figures we've seen, about 500 more people every year are exercising their judgement and discretion by no longer clicking on Metafilter at all.

It has slowed down a bit.

Year Number of Mefi commenters ----- -------------------------------- 2018 6546 2019 6030 2020 5606 2021 4898 2022 4677 2023 4357
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 11:56 AM on November 23, 2023 [9 favorites]

I will feel compelled to go shit up that thread.

this is surely the sort of thing that should be addressed by high quality moderation?
posted by Sebmojo at 12:07 PM on November 23, 2023 [8 favorites]

Adding a Hide button is cheaper and easier than adding high quality moderation (although I wouldn't be opposed to having both).
posted by ryanrs at 12:29 PM on November 23, 2023 [3 favorites]

This isn't for posts that break the site guidelines. I just flag those.

This is for posts that break my own guidelines.
posted by ryanrs at 12:37 PM on November 23, 2023 [5 favorites]

This request comes up at least once a year, it seems, and it always feels like it's a question about the identity of MetaFilter. Is it a community commons where we expect duly appointed representatives to keep the peace? (Moderation, as per now) Or is it social media feed, where you block/engage with whom you like, and ignore everything else going on around you? These are fundamentally different approaches to interaction on the internet.

I like Metafilter as the former, as it's one of the only places I CAN get this. I'm not really looking for Twitter-but-with-subsites.

This is a lot more than a code issue; can it be referred to the new board as question to resolve?
posted by curious nu at 12:54 PM on November 23, 2023 [8 favorites]

May I discreetly direct your attention to the Mute-a-Filter browser extension? [Chrome, FireFox]

Thank you - that is exactly what I was looking for!
posted by openhearted at 1:07 PM on November 23, 2023 [3 favorites]

This is about giving all users self-service mod tools to shape their own experience on Metafilter. I want to be able to delete threads and ban users. That's what Hide and Block do.

Making these self-service mod tools available to individual users is actually pretty great, which is why most social media sites do it. The benefits are zero admin overhead, instant gratification, no chance of dogpiling/spiraling, no arguing, etc. I don't want to explain and defend my own choices, hot buttons, phobias, and trauma to the mods, or to any of you people. Why should I? Why on earth would you want me to?

Just let me click the buttons myself. It's so much easier that way.
posted by ryanrs at 1:16 PM on November 23, 2023 [18 favorites]

These are fundamentally different approaches to interaction on the internet.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. You can have high quality moderation to keep the general conversation welcoming but also offer individual users tools to shape their own experiences.

People are always going to choose to engage with some content here and not others, tools would perhaps make it easier for them to do that in positive ways rather than negative ways.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:33 PM on November 23, 2023 [10 favorites]

I can see if there's an argument about where this should be prioritized and the technical costs of implementation, but arguments based on the theory that Mefites should be perfect humans who don't respond to their environments are...strange to me. Do people really not take steps elsewhere online to block content they know they'll respond to badly?
posted by praemunire at 1:39 PM on November 23, 2023 [15 favorites]

As ever with requests like this I'd like to know who exactly is so offensive, s/he is being muted.
posted by Rash at 4:44 PM on November 23, 2023 [2 favorites]

As ever with requests like this I'd like to know who exactly is so offensive, s/he is being muted.

But no, see, that's the beauty of the button--it stays private, it's based on personal choice (or just how you're feeling that day), with no sort of public adjudication of whether you should or should not want to read a topic or a person. Because I'm sure we all have people who rub us the wrong way, where we wouldn't want to have to explain why--it's personal! Maybe it's temporary! But the one thing it shouldn't be is public.

To curious nu's point, I'm not sure it has to rise to, like, a site culture question--that is, it doesn't change MF's identity if you scroll past a post, choose not to read it, choose not to engage with a comment--so it shouldn't change that identity if you were given a tool that helped you move past it, by making it invisible to you. It really is just a small quality-of-life improvement--and one that's clearly welcomed, given all the suggestions of extensions and scripts we've heard over the years to do just that.
posted by mittens at 5:16 PM on November 23, 2023 [23 favorites]

That's why Mute A Filter is so great...it only grays out comments, you can still read them, and apply that grain of salt if you don't trust that particular poster. Or skip it entirely with no consequence at all. They don't even know their comments are grayed out, which is polite! It's a lovely tool that is all on the user as to how they want to use it.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:19 PM on November 23, 2023 [3 favorites]

I'd like to think people here are mature enough to just scroll past something they don't want to see, albeit there's clear evidence to the contrary. Acknowledging there are valid perspectives other than my own, I am opposed to the idea of completely hiding content in the way suggested or anything similar. I can see some value in something like the functionality described in Mute A Filter, because at least muted content is just muted, not hidden. I do feel that the MyMeFi page would mostly (definitely not always) solve the problem of posts, although I wonder if the same functionality could be expanded to include users as well as tags. I can only imagine what the code behind that function looks like, though.
posted by dg at 6:42 PM on November 23, 2023 [3 favorites]

It's not hiding content from you, dg. This is so I can hide content only from myself.
posted by ryanrs at 7:03 PM on November 23, 2023 [9 favorites]

Yes, I get that. My view, though, is that allowing individuals to make parts of conversations or whole conversations completely invisible is not conducive to the sort of community MetaFilter is. Obviously, that's just my view.
posted by dg at 10:12 PM on November 23, 2023 [8 favorites]

That's like getting mad that some people don't read every thread.
posted by ryanrs at 10:24 PM on November 23, 2023 [10 favorites]

That's like getting mad that some people don't read every thread.

No, it’s like being uncomfortable having a conversation where some people are pointedly ignoring the contributions of others.

You don’t have to join every conversation that happens, but when you do there is a point of view that you should be fully participating and not just chatting with the people you like.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 10:45 PM on November 23, 2023 [15 favorites]

But hiding threads would still be ok, right? Because you're not posting in that thread.
posted by ryanrs at 11:05 PM on November 23, 2023 [1 favorite]

As I said, I don't like the idea of making anything invisible. If this is just about some people lacking the willpower to stay out of conversations they know will go badly for them, that's a problem for them to solve. You may find that overly harsh, but that's my view. On a scale, hiding whole threads is way less bad than hiding certain user/s comments, but I still don't see it as desirable or beneficial.
posted by dg at 12:00 AM on November 24, 2023 [9 favorites]

It's not 'overly harsh', it's just stupid and counter-productive. Metafilter isn't supposed to be a test of willpower.
posted by ryanrs at 12:10 AM on November 24, 2023 [12 favorites]

No, it’s like being uncomfortable having a conversation where some people are pointedly ignoring the contributions of others.

This already happens in virtually every single thread! Maybe not "pointedly" but it's already the nature of metafilter that there's no feedback on the majority of comments.
posted by Baethan at 4:46 AM on November 24, 2023 [8 favorites]

The “eat your spinach” vibe of this thread has serious greatest generation energy to it, congrats. In my days we couldn’t erase the screeds scratched into the bathroom stall door, so I developed real will power. And we get it, there’s no crying in baseball.

But even so, the thing is, we’re a contracting community and it might be okay to consider, for the future, features that lots of platforms offer to make things less fighty and more fun, and that recognize that people are individuals who have differing approaches.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:12 AM on November 24, 2023 [35 favorites]

Agree with dg. I come here because I appreciate the variety of responses. On reddit, most of the replies I see are worthless; not the case on MeFi. I think it's weird how some of you want to 'cancel' some of us.
posted by Rash at 5:40 AM on November 24, 2023 [1 favorite]

People are already using it for comments. It would be hard for anyone to notice its being used on their comments.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:01 AM on November 24, 2023 [2 favorites]

I think it's weird how some of you want to 'cancel' some of us.

So, giving this comment the benefit of the doubt--that putting 'cancel' in quotes signals a mutual understanding that 'cancel' isn't really what's happening in this discussion, and that not reading someone is not the same as silencing them--because, obviously, that's incorrect and if taken at face value would be oddly inflammatory in what is a basic feature request--so, anyway, with all that in mind: Your appreciation of the variety of responses is great, and Metafilter's value is built on that appreciation for hearing what other people say. However, that appreciation in no way detracts from the fact that, as we've hashed out a million times over the years, there are some topics that MetaFilter is just bad at, to give one example of a use case.

How many MetaTalks have we had about a given issue, that resulted in a hemorrhage of valuable users--and thus a diminishing of that variety of responses? "MF doesn't do [topic] well" has become a cliche because it turned out to be true of a lot of topics! And so, while the usual response has been (a) fight it out in MetaTalk, (b) grit your teeth and keep posting, or (c) leave more or less silently--the request here is simply to add (d) let me ignore the thread.

But that's only one use case. I'll tell you another. You know the number one thing I hide on Reddit? News stories about either child or animal abuse. I don't ever want to see those. I can't stomach it. It's not that the people posting those stories are bad, and it's not that the topic should never come up. It's that I, as reader, am emotionally and mentally bothered by seeing it. And before anyone starts snickering about snowflakes and triggering, I'm not saying I'm accruing harm from seeing the topic, I'm just saying it bugs me and makes me sad and helpless-feeling, and--surprise!--sad and helpless are two emotions I'd like to avoid while scrolling through sites that are kinda for entertainment.

So there are two examples, before we even get to the somewhat milder "Mefite X just bugs me because their sense of humor/sense of seriousness/constant posting of that damn plums poem/whatever seems to show up everywhere I look, and I'd like to take maybe three days off from seeing them everywhere." I think there's also plenty of value in that--although I guess it's harder to make a moral case there.
posted by mittens at 6:02 AM on November 24, 2023 [38 favorites]

It’s interesting you think the quality will go down if you’re “cancelled” but as pointed out above, people applying a filter and people applying a mental filter are not that different
posted by warriorqueen at 6:15 AM on November 24, 2023 [5 favorites]

I would love to have filtering by keyword available. There are a few topics that, while innocuous in themselves, tend to bump me toward scrupulosity spirals. For example I would be happy to be blithely unaware of any post containing the word "IRS", regardless of how much I value that person's other posts. And it needs to be freeform keyword, not tag, so it doesn't depend on what the poster chooses to tag with.
posted by Rhedyn at 6:29 AM on November 24, 2023 [2 favorites]

The “eat your spinach” vibe

Perhaps the imperative of "if someone is uncomfortable we must modify the site to accommodate them" is beginning to wear thin.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 6:30 AM on November 24, 2023 [7 favorites]

Perhaps the imperative of "if someone is uncomfortable we must modify the site to accommodate them" is beginning to wear thin.

I frequently roll my eyes at some of the Metafilter preciousness and sensitiveness, because I'm old and cynical and British, so I feel like I know where you're coming from... and yet introducing very common tools to help people enjoy their experience here does not seem like that kind of thing.

The biggest difference is that it's not requesting everyone else change their behaviour to accommodate the wishes of a small group or single person. It's not asking anyone to change what they're doing.

It's simply "rather than me starting to read these posts or comments, get a bit annoyed, and then move on, could I just hide them from myself?"

I'm not even saying it's 100% a good idea, because, as stated above, such things do affect a community a little. And it's not like there aren't enough other technical things to get done. But, still, it seems like a thing that, on the whole, would make the site more enjoyable for some people, with little effect on anyone else.
posted by fabius at 6:48 AM on November 24, 2023 [28 favorites]

I think it's weird how some of you want to 'cancel' some of us.

I use diediedead (I do not like the name) on my home computer. Sometimes I cruise by MF on my work computer where I'm unable to install it and I guarantee you nobody has been 'cancelled' from the site just because I don't see them. They're active and posting and getting responses and favorites.

I would love for something like this to be baked into the site, but acknowledge there are bigger fish to fry.
posted by kimberussell at 6:49 AM on November 24, 2023 [7 favorites]

Perhaps the imperative of "if someone is uncomfortable we must modify the site to accommodate them" is beginning to wear thin.

See that’s funny because to me, demanding that people “develop willpower” and make sure they aren’t somehow disrupting conversation by not seeing every comment is way more of a kind of shamey-blamey ask than that tools widely available for a very long time be considered in the future. That attitude is pretty ugh to me.

The block/mute/snooze thing is kinda like a reset password link. You should remember your password but do you really want to have to answer all that email or have people not log in? No, so you make it easy. If we’re fine (as we should be) with “skip comments or posts you don’t like,” providing a tool to do that is just a tool.
posted by warriorqueen at 7:01 AM on November 24, 2023 [14 favorites]

I wonder if people aren’t envisioning really different situations when they react to this MeTa. When I think of “if you can’t say something nice, skip the thread,” I’m usually imagining a thread about a band or author or maybe an activity. Dropping into a thread where people are sharing their enjoyment of a band to post “I don’t know why anyone likes this” is a jerk move and the member should have enough willpower to not do that. Other people are imagining posts on things that are much more visceral and much harder to ignore, like the animal cruelty example above. They aren’t bad posts, just ones with a triggering topic. Helping users deal with the latter is an entirely reasonable thing to do, assuming the technical aspects are manageable, but it would be overkill for the former.

As far as blocking other commenters, I think that’s maybe unproductive in the long run for a discussion site, but I’ll admit there have been users in the past (long departed) whose comments I tended to skip and a few who I would have liked to delete from my feed, so I see the attraction, even if it makes me uneasy.
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:53 AM on November 24, 2023 [4 favorites]

If this was ever going to happen, it would have happened already. (Unless there's new management coming with this nonprofit stuff.)

But if a button to block particular users is ever implemented, I hope there's a way to see how many people block me. And I want names, damn it.
posted by pracowity at 7:58 AM on November 24, 2023 [4 favorites]

Then Enter the MetaDome...
posted by y2karl at 8:00 AM on November 24, 2023 [1 favorite]

Perhaps the imperative of "if someone is uncomfortable we must modify the site to accommodate them" is beginning to wear thin.

this was my immediate feeling. That is, I'm definitely on team "no, we don't need any special tools to hide posts, hide people, hide anything", particularly as we are a comparatively well moderated site. To which I'd add that over time I've come to learn a lot from people who initially annoyed me. I'm glad, I couldn't just hide or mute or do anything except consciously not engage with them. Some would say this is a bug. For me at least, it's been more of a feature.

But ...

I've been dead wrong about stuff here before. The edit window, for instance. I thought it was a terrible idea, that it would be abused a lot and would trigger a lot of mid-discussion chaos. Whereas no, that hasn't really happened, and I personally have come to quite value it. It's a good tool. It helps me appear smarter and more precise than I really am.

So whatever. Mark me down as undecided on tools toward hiding/muting stuff.
posted by philip-random at 10:12 AM on November 24, 2023 [6 favorites]

There are certain users that have a….let’s say schtick….I don’t find nearly as cute or amusing as they do and my enjoyment of the site would increase tenfold if I never saw them again. But I also doubt such a feature could be bolted onto the site as it stands today.
posted by Diskeater at 11:41 AM on November 24, 2023 [12 favorites]

I am not as invested in this as my posting might indicate but I feel like this thread betrays some of the bias that may (or may not) underpin some of these discussions so…

To which I'd add that over time I've come to learn a lot from people who initially annoyed me. I'm glad, I couldn't just hide or mute or do anything except consciously not engage with them.

That’s great, but without the data on the other side (how many people have stopping making posts/responding/reading/left because they couldn’t avoid topics or people. Or because others piled on where a block would have prevented that), it’s hard to evaluate the impact on the user base (or potential user base) as a whole.

I miss some members who might have stayed if they could not have burnt out on certain things. And I have suspicions about people who posted frequently in certain areas of the site who might have stayed if people had been able to opt out of those posts in some way.

I also wonder about the costs - both actual, but also opportunity costs - of relying on moderation to address these very personal irritants. I don’t have that information but I would guess some portion of moderator time goes towards conflicts that could be eased if people had better tools. I too have a short list of topics that I would rather block and the times I have waded in, I’ve regretted.

I hope there's a way to see how many people block me. And I want names, damn it.

I don’t know if this was a joke but wow, this is so different from my perspective. I’d much rather people block me if they find me irritating. I don’t really have an expectation that my comments must be read…obviously I hope they contribute and I like the community. But I already know I’m not to everyone’s taste and this is a place people come for essentially recreation. Sure, it’s not a great feeling but I’d much prefer a silent block than upsetting someone over and over.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:44 AM on November 24, 2023 [19 favorites]

Well, there is the piquant schadenfreude the latter can bring.
posted by y2karl at 12:03 PM on November 24, 2023 [1 favorite]

I think this is a great idea and I'd like to suggest an enhancement: create a button on each post that lets me mute every user who favorited that post or comment in a batch job instead of having to click each user individually.
posted by some loser at 2:27 PM on November 24, 2023 [1 favorite]

If this is just about some people lacking the willpower to stay out of conversations they know will go badly for them, that's a problem for them to solve.

Yes! And some people would like to solve it by removing the visible temptation from their feeds.

Personally, as long as someone hiding/muting a thread, comment, or user does not affect the visibility of that content for others, I am in favour of anything that helps people better choose or manage what they engage in. I think we'd have a lot less snark and "I don't see the point of this"-type comments if a hide button were in place.
posted by rpfields at 3:27 PM on November 24, 2023 [10 favorites]

MetaFilter is gonna MetaFilter.

I don’t actually understand what there is to even argue about. If the tech is there either built in or extension, you do you and mute/hide if that’s what you want to do and if you don’t, no biggie. Your personal choice on this subject shouldn’t be important to anybody but you. Sheesh.
posted by ashbury at 3:49 PM on November 24, 2023 [7 favorites]

Kind of a pain to scroll past comments from mute-worthy users when the username is at the end of a comment.

I've found it comfortable to take an approach like mute-a-filter, but that also prepends the username to the muted comment (using the ::before pseudo-element).

Limiting comment height and applying a comment-level scrollbar has also been nice for handling particularly verbose commenters.
posted by otsebyatina at 5:04 PM on November 24, 2023 [1 favorite]

What if there was a way for users to mute threads/keywords/users, but the site didn’t require everyone to use it? Like, if people who want this feature could use it and other people could choose not to? Then weaklings could enjoy the site because they are seeing more of the stuff they like, and others could do strength training by seeing things that upset or annoy them. Could a muting feature be designed to work like that?
posted by snofoam at 7:27 PM on November 24, 2023 [13 favorites]

stop invoking Poe's Law so hard snofoam, I nearly strained an eyebrow no lie
posted by Baethan at 7:33 PM on November 24, 2023 [1 favorite]

While the more sympathetic point about animal harm is also applicable to me, I will say up front: It me. I'm the problem. I stay fighty sometimes long after there's any point to it in a discussion. It genuinely helps on other social media if I mute the thread or whatever so that I don't get any reminders to prompt me to continue the fighty. It's not the highest priority ever, but it'd be nice to be able to do that here, too. Thanks to everyone concerned about my willpower or mental capacity or whatever, but this is not where I come to forge my character in the white-hot heat of personal struggle.
posted by praemunire at 7:35 PM on November 24, 2023 [15 favorites]

"There are certain users that have a….let’s say schtick….I don’t find nearly as cute or amusing as they do and my enjoyment of the site would increase tenfold if I never saw them again. But I also doubt such a feature could be bolted onto the site as it stands today."

I would love this, but It took two or three years to get an exclamation point changed to a flag. Unless whoever ends up running this site decides to move the site to a modern, easily-customizable platform, then this is never going to happen. And since the site (eg. its users) seems to pride itself on being a time capsule, then moving the site to a modern, easily-customizable platform is most likely never going to happen.
posted by jonathanhughes at 7:56 PM on November 24, 2023 [7 favorites]

But if a button to block particular users is ever implemented, I hope there's a way to see how many people block me. And I want names, damn it.

I've gotten some henious vile Mefi Mail in the past. There wasn't a block button but at least the mods then were helpful. A block button would have been great! But if the blocked person knew that I blocked them, that would have opened me up for way more harassment off Mefi, on platforms that may not necessarily have responsive mods.

And this has happened elsewhere! Got harassed racially on Mastodon within my first few hours of being there - the harassers moved on to targeting my Patreon. Some dudebro on Twitter made a snarky comment about me and then I had people tracking me down on shared Slack spaces just to slag me off. Blocking helped deal with most of it, but sometimes they could tell who blocked them and that made things worse.

I don't know if that comment was made in jest. But if enough people here think that's actually a reasonable demand, that is actually a major risk to me (and many others) safetywise. I've already had to button at least once, come on.
posted by creatrixtiara at 9:04 PM on November 24, 2023 [18 favorites]

Some people have expressed interest in filtering out specific users - at one time there was another extension called Nancy that would let you do this (I used it myself on a Mefite who is no longer here and it worked fine). But it seems to have been taken down from Chrome's webstore; does anyone know if it's okay?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 3:42 AM on November 25, 2023

I went looking for diediedead (unfortunate name I agree) after it was mentioned upthread and it does exactly the keyword filtering I was wanting, at least on Firefox. So with that available it doesn't seem like the site needs to duplicate the functionality while they have other work to do. I would suggest that the site put it in the FAQ if the name wasn't so unfortunate :P
posted by Rhedyn at 4:29 AM on November 25, 2023 [1 favorite]

"There's an existing browser extension that does that" should have absolutely no bearing on whether a feature is added to the site. A huge number of people access the Internet primarily via smartphone.

Continuing to prioritize desktop users would be... well, telling.
posted by Baethan at 5:01 AM on November 25, 2023 [17 favorites]

(especially while there are those of us still using the gopher server)
posted by mittens at 5:08 AM on November 25, 2023 [4 favorites]

Could someone explain how this would work on a subject level? How do I indicate I want to block, for example, posts containing animal cruelty? How does the tool recognize such posts?
posted by DanSachs at 6:02 AM on November 25, 2023

DanSachs, I presume that for content (as opposed to use blocking), either tags or a keyword filter would work.
posted by sagc at 6:05 AM on November 25, 2023 [1 favorite]

Should we have a hide button that users can apply to simply remove posts from view on the blue and green?

Yes.

Agreed on the value of the MyMeFi setup mentioned above. Also, I hadn't looked at that set of tabs on the right for 5+ years (?) and had forgotten they existed. Maybe others are in the same boat.
posted by cupcakeninja at 6:19 AM on November 25, 2023

huge number of people access the Internet primarily via smartphone.

Idk about other browsers but Firefox mobile supports most Firefox desktop extensions.
posted by Mitheral at 7:38 AM on November 25, 2023 [2 favorites]

DanSachs, I presume that for content (as opposed to user blocking), either tags or a keyword filter would work.
posted by sagc at 9:05 AM on November 25

So if I want to block animal cruelty I need to match exactly a tag the poster decides to use?
posted by DanSachs at 8:20 AM on November 25, 2023

yes
posted by sagc at 8:45 AM on November 25, 2023

Kind of a pain to scroll past comments from mute-worthy users when the username is at the end of a comment

So a simple solution would be placing the username at the top of each comment.
posted by Rash at 9:09 AM on November 25, 2023 [1 favorite]

~I will feel compelled to go shit up that thread.
~this is surely the sort of thing that should be addressed by high quality moderation?

Or therapy.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:23 AM on November 25, 2023 [6 favorites]

So a simple solution would be placing the username at the top of each comment.

I'd welcome that change, but wouldn't be surprised if that turned out to be a controversial suggestion or complex undertaking somehow.
posted by otsebyatina at 11:13 AM on November 25, 2023 [2 favorites]

I like the idea of being able to click a button and that causes a post or comment to "shrink" to the first line of text of content, colored light grey.. So it's mostly out of the way, but I know it's there, in case there's something I want to go back and read.

Folks who choose to use such a button (or whatever variation might be decided on) are perfectly fine in using it, as are those who choose not to. I'm guessing it would cause some instances of people not reading an comment and getting information or tone wrong, but that's survivable. It should still be made clear that if people want to comment in a thread, well, they should be sure of what's been said, i.e. they've read the comments.

That's me talking as user, not as mod. As a mod, I'd be fine with whatever seems to help community the most.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:17 PM on November 25, 2023 [9 favorites]

I don't understand the impetus to keep a 'reminder' on the page, whether truncated, or gray, or whatever.

Is this just so there can be place to hang an Undo button? If so, make it so that the Undo button replaces the hidden comment when you click Hide. But if you do a page reload, it's gone for good.

Otherwise, it's a bit like a system that sends you a notification every time it bounces a DM from someone you've blocked. On the one hand, you can imagine scenarios where that could be useful. On the other hand, you're missing the point.
posted by ryanrs at 3:37 PM on November 25, 2023 [1 favorite]

I don't understand the impetus to keep a 'reminder' on the page, whether truncated, or gray, or whatever.

For me it's a good visual reminder of conversation going on that I'm choosing to ignore. So if there's a page of those conversation indicators, I might check them out, to see what's what. If it's just one or more, I'd probably continue ignoring them.

Conversation is our bread and butter and having a visual indicator of how much conversation why is choosing to miss would be useful, IMO. Obviously others may feel differently.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 3:56 PM on November 25, 2023 [2 favorites]

How does the tool recognize such posts?

the entirely imaginary tool can do whatever you want it to

Or therapy.

mm.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:48 PM on November 25, 2023

Hiding posts on the front page would be eh, whatever. But kill-filing users within the threads is kind of different. It's kind of hard to have a conversation where the parties have different experiences of what's been said so far (good and bad)
posted by ctmf at 11:40 PM on November 25, 2023 [7 favorites]

Conversation is our bread and butter and having a visual indicator of how much conversation why is choosing to miss would be useful, IMO. Obviously others may feel differently.

The thought of ill considered snap judgments is enough to make one clutch their pearls.
posted by y2karl at 1:35 AM on November 26, 2023

On a different site, I've really appreciated the ability to replace an avatar by one that reminds me that this poster tends to bring out the 'worst' in me. (Calming light green background with the word 'disagree'.) The post was still fully visible, I generally still read them, I just got a reminder that should avoid responding in haste.

I'd like to add that I didn't originally expect to use/appreciate that feature, but when I started using it, I felt that it was an improvement.

I think some form of this would be worth a try, since it can help to have better discussions.
posted by demi-octopus at 1:36 AM on November 26, 2023

Posts tagged with Killfile
posted by adamvasco at 3:57 AM on November 26, 2023 [7 favorites]

It should still be made clear that if people want to comment in a thread, well, they should be sure of what's been said, i.e. they've read the comments.

Why? Like in all seriousness, I think this assumption can go either way. How many great conversations are we not, or no longer, having because people burned out on this kind of norm? How many people don’t comment because they don’t want to comment after seeing someone already [x pet peeve]-shit the thread and it doesn’t rise to a “report it” level? How many people look at the blue, see a post that just niggles at them, and go watch Netflix instead? (Which is all fine but doesn’t add great conversation.)

I don’t know but my guess is neither does anyone else.

Conversation is our bread and butter

Goodconversation is, and I’d argue that not having bog-standard basic features might contribute to some degree to our lack of growth, whether putting off new users or burning out current ones. I would ideally want to test that before investing a lot of time and money, but I’m kind of in this conversation to keep pointing out that there are a ton of assumptions being stated but a very important group — the people who have given up — aren’t in the conversation.

kind of hard to have a conversation where the parties have different experiences of what's been said so far (good and bad)

People are doing this already whether it’s just mentally or via the browser extensions mentioned.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:32 AM on November 26, 2023 [14 favorites]

Damn, people have been requesting this since 2000. 😳
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:49 AM on November 26, 2023 [2 favorites]

They were the defacto default with news readers and there was a good percentage of early users who came from that culture. While the only half way effective tool for unmoderated discussion they really writ large how annoying a fractured discussion could get with people missing chunks and then responding to replies to those chunks in completely bizarre ways to those who read everything.
posted by Mitheral at 8:37 AM on November 26, 2023 [3 favorites]

While the only half way effective tool for unmoderated discussion they really writ large how annoying a fractured discussion could get with people missing chunks and then responding to replies to those chunks in completely bizarre ways to those who read everything.

That's not how I remember it. As I look at the many, many environments that I've interacted in over the years, the amount of "bad comments due to missing blocked comments" vs. the quantity of "fighty shit and burnout due to personal/stylistic/perspective conflicts" is like...miniscule in comparison.

That's anedata of one but...the idea that everyone's comments are deathless prose just reads like one of the Geek Social Fallacies to me at this point and I feel like this has been proven in the marketplace.

I am also not sure it's even likely that people will block half of each other and everything will suddenly become incoherent.

I also think people are overestimating the amount of close reading people are doing right now. I skip most environmental posts and car/transportation/urban posts on this site because I cannot handle the amount of doomshitting and "burn it down" and "fuck cars" comments (the unsubstantive ones that are just emotion) - it's not traumatic or anything but it makes it really unpleasant for me and I feel like it makes me a) feel like this community is a garbage dump for people's anxiety and b) that I'm less likely to go action on things in my community if I let that invade my space. When I do participate, you bet I'm trying not to read that stuff.

This is not something I think mods should be deleting necessarily. But that one - yeah. I wish I could discuss some of those topics here and even get advice from people -- years ago I used some tips from this site to get a bus route changed locally -- but just can't with them.

I don't think this is necessarily a grevious loss to the world, but the list of things I don't read on the site is growing over time.

I miss in particular people who were really expert posting here on topics dear to them. And I wonder if part of why that expertise is missing is how hard it is to take breaks/weed out certain things.

I will also point out since I'm posting and I think this should be the last one in this thread, that I think people who are overall managing a lot of their days in self-regulation or dealing with "shit I shouldn't have to listen to" are more likely to appreciate a simple toolset. Besides people who are dealing with topics that are related to really difficult personal stress (-phobias, -isms, etc.), I suspect a lot of people who are happy with the status quo are not the main emotional labourers in their work and personal lives.

I also am still bemused at the assumption that someone not reading someone else's comment is cancellation or a personal insult.

I'm considering installing some of the blockers noted in this thread. Which points to - people are doing this censoring work, they're just having to work harder at it and may just give up instead.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:06 AM on November 26, 2023 [34 favorites]

My view, though, is that allowing individuals to make parts of conversations or whole conversations completely invisible is not conducive to the sort of community MetaFilter is.

I disagree, and if it's really not... it should be.

Anybody should be "allowed" and even encouraged to make parts of the site invisible if they don't want to interact with them. The beauty of websites and forums is that, unlike in real life, you can easily do that. I just wish I could do the same thing in the real world...
posted by jzb at 3:00 PM on November 26, 2023 [4 favorites]

Obviously, the best way to preserve Metafilter community norms is to ensure that users are interacting with comprehensive knowledge of the site. Within a post, that’s easy. We could measure the scrolling rate to ensure that logged-in users had read all previous comments before commenting. Subsequent comments would only require a scrolling rate that indicates reading on the portion of the thread since the last comment. I’m sure that’s pretty easy to whip up. If we wanted a higher level of certainty, we could add a reading comprehension question to each comment, after the [flag] icon, or on a separate line, with a text field for answers. We probably don’t have the mod coverage to check that each person’s answers to each comment test question prove that they read them, but the answers would be saved, so violators could be identified after the fact and banned from future commenting. On the one hand, it could seem onerous to have to answer a question about every comment in a thread before commenting, but in the other, it seems like a small price to pay for community, and quality conversation.
posted by snofoam at 4:33 PM on November 26, 2023 [12 favorites]

The people who are concerned about the implications of these kinds of tools to community fabric have a point, but I also think one needs to dial in the definition of "community."

My immediate family, for instance, is a community. If our situation devolved to the point where it was not possible for one of us to interact with the others and the "solution" to that was simply walking around with headphones and sunglasses on whenever there was risk of interaction, I'd have come concerns and would suggest we had some work to do. (Yes, some families, that's the best they can manage.)

My workplace is a community. There are some people I can go years without interacting with. Some I would prefer not to interact with but am obligated, by function, to have some interactions with. If I had, say, a four person team of developers and nobody would work with Human #4, or if Human #1 refused to interact with Humans #2 and #3 or even read their Slack messages, then there would be a problem and that'd be an unhealthy work community. I don't think the proper direction would be toward issuing sunglasses and headphones or creating a Slack channel for each functioning relationship.

And there are activist and other circles I've been in where I knew it was simply best to carve out a healthy buffer between me and some others because it was just best for the wider community of activists trying to get whatever done if we demurred on the opportunity to exercise our mutual issues. So if they headed for the media outreach committee, I decided it might be nice to contribute to the events planning group.

This site has multiple thousands of commenters. It is well beyond the scope and scale of a small activist group. There are multiple generations of users on this site, many with different expectations that can coexist but don't always align. It makes sense to provide ways for people who'd prefer not to engage with certain other people a way to do that.
posted by Pudding Yeti at 9:29 PM on November 26, 2023 [15 favorites]

Can't possibly favorite warriorqueen's comment enough. The inability to hide content from some users and on some topics makes it like sitting in a bar or cafe right next to someone railing semi-coherently about their hobbyhorse that's unpleasant to hear about, actually your favorite thing, provokes trauma responses, etc. Typically when you return to said establishment, you then tend to avoid said someone, but that's just not possible here. I can do it on that one site where all the Nazis hang out, and I can do it on that other site where dark money influences elections, and I can do it on that site where "free speech" means awful things are present all the time. MetaFilter does not have those problems, for which I am grateful, and it has many strengths, but I can at least get a semi-private table at those other establishments.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:35 AM on November 27, 2023 [12 favorites]

Has anyone tried running any of the MeFi tampermonkey/greasemonkey scripts on an iPhone through this free Userscripts app? (Github page with documentation.)
posted by nobody at 5:20 AM on November 27, 2023

Has anyone tried running any of the MeFi tampermonkey/greasemonkey scripts on an iPhone through this free Userscripts app?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no way to actually install a script on an iPhone? Clicking the green install button just shows the code of the script after installing the Usercripts App, correct? I've turned it on the Settings>Safari>Extensions, defined a folder to save scripts, but installation seems like it's supposed to be on Mac OS?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 6:37 AM on November 27, 2023

Thank you warriorqueen for all the work you’ve done in this thread — this really does sound like a needed option, given reality.

I also really appreciate the way Pudding Yeti talked about different ideas of community, and how scale matters in this.
posted by curious nu at 6:44 AM on November 27, 2023 [5 favorites]

This site has multiple thousands of commenters. It is well beyond the scope and scale of a small activist group. There are multiple generations of users on this site, many with different expectations that can coexist but don't always align. It makes sense to provide ways for people who'd prefer not to engage with certain other people a way to do that.

Seconded. Upthread I copped to using a script to block a commenter - it wasn't over anything this person said or topics this person discussed, it was because this person just really bugged the snot out of me. And after a few years of suffering, I heard about one of the scripts and added it to my browser and filtered this person out and ahhhhhhhhh. I still saw all the comments other people made in response to things this person had said, but that didn't bother me - it just seemed to re-affirm that I'd made the right decision. (Maybe I even laughed up my sleeve at this person a bit too - "haha, they're up to their old tricks still, but I don't see it, hee.")

(NB - this person has left the site by now anyway.)

I do notice, also, that there's a difference between avoiding topics and avoiding people. It's a little easier to avoid a topic - if you know that Martin Scorcese movies piss you off, and there's a post about a Martin Scorcese retrospective, it probably makes sense for you not to visit that post. It's a little trickier when it is an individual who pisses you off - I'm a movie buff so I'd visit that Martin Scorcese post, but oh shit, That Person I Don't Like also was there and left a ludicrous comment about halfway down the thread and now I'm pissed off. Okay, lemme go check out food, that looks like a fun discussion - oh, shit, That Person is in there TOO. ....Okay, there's no way That Person will comment in this thread about camping, I think they said they hated camping - wait, they're commenting in there because of something their Meemaw said once? DAMMIT!

It would be good if we could all get along, but that is not realistically possible. Never in the history of ever has there been anyone who got along with 100% of the people they met. I'm sure even Fred Rogers had some people he just didn't want to hang out with, even though he was cordial to them when they met. It's easy to avoid a topic, it's harder to avoid a person - and if it's a person that you can't put your finger on why you don't like them, you just don't, trying to grit your teeth and put up with them is kinda exhausting. So that filter was a boon.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:35 AM on November 27, 2023 [8 favorites]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no way to actually install a script on an iPhone?

I hadn't tried any of it myself before asking about it, but testing out now with one of the simpler MeFi scripts, it does seem to work without doing anything outside of the phone itself.

Here's what I did:

1) From a github page for a userscript (simple example), click the three dots [...] in the code pane's upper-right and choose download. Wait for it to download. (Presumably this should work with a direct link to the script file, too, but I'm not entirely clear on iPhone downloading nuances.)

2) Open the Files app, where the script will show up in the Recents interface. Longpress on the file and choose to Move it to the userscripts folder you said you already set up.

3) That's all it takes! But you might still need to give the Userscripts extension itself permission to run on specific sites. In Settings > Safari > Extensions, where you gave Userscripts the initial permission to run at all, clicking into Userscripts there and scrolling down you'll see a choice between Ask, Deny, and Allow, with Ask as the default. At least on my aging phone, there wasn't any active Asking going on when visiting a webpage, so two options:

a) Just for testing, you could change the setting to Allow for all sites.

or b) In Safari (inscrutably, at least on my old phone) clicking on the "AA" button in the address bar is what brought up a popup menu where I could give Userscripts permission to run specifically on the currently viewed site without giving it wider permissions. (Once it has pemission to run on the current page, Safari adds a little puzzle-piece extension icon in the address bar, also clickable.)

(Either way, you'd only need to do step three once, not once per script.)
posted by nobody at 8:05 AM on November 27, 2023

The reason I suggested we try to separate out the conversation about hiding FPPs and hiding comments or users is that I think hiding FPPs would probably be far less controversial*. Aside from whatever technical effort might be required, it seems like empowering users to hide FPPs has far more benefit than cost. I know that on occasion I have encountered day-ruining triggers on the front page, which meant just staying away from MeFi until the content was likely to have moved off the front page. MeFi could have gotten more participation from me, on net, if I could just hide posts like those.

Exceedingly few conversations here hinge on whether their participants have seen previous FPPs. Maybe someone will be like "what's with all the corn/popping?" or "sure is a lot of Zelda today" because the front page has a string of popcorn or Zelda posts in a row. Mostly, though, posts are expected to explicitly link to the information the ensuing discussion is likely to depend on. The site simply does not depend on everyone seeing the exact same list of FPPs on the front page.

In conclusion, hiding FPPs FTW.

*MeTa meta note: One risk of hashing out potential changes in MeTa is that controversy attracts comments. Unless participants actively seek out or signal-boost areas of agreement, those areas might not get noticed and acted on- having been lost in the stream of arguments over the tricky stuff.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 9:09 AM on November 27, 2023 [5 favorites]

All the FPP hiding effort should go into making My MeFi better and making users more aware of it. It's a cool site feature; let's build on it instead of duplicating it.
posted by michaelh at 9:37 AM on November 27, 2023 [4 favorites]

Obviously, the best way to preserve Metafilter community norms is to ensure that users are interacting with comprehensive knowledge of the site.

gonna +1 this and suggest some kind of basic eyeball tracking/gentle blink discouragement, a la the Ludovico Technique. I believe together we can make a better metafilter.
posted by Sebmojo at 6:24 PM on November 27, 2023 [5 favorites]

The “eat your spinach” vibe of this thread

You know what, fine, let me run with it.

So we used to have this nice potluck day at the community centre, and folks brought a lot of really nice and interesting and varied food, and it was a lot of fun.

But then it got really popular. And some people brought bad food that made a lot of people sick. So we ended up asking for donations, and used the donations to hire some staff to check everything for basic food safety. But the staff don't make the food. Everyone making the food is bringing it for free.

Of course, some folks are allergic to things. So we asked everyone to make it really clear when there were common allergens in the food they brought, and that worked pretty well for a while. But then someone put a message on the Facebook group saying that they ate something with bananas in it and got sick. A lot of people just didn't realise that was a thing people could be allergic to, so there was a big thread about it, and bananas were added to the list of things that needed to be labelled. This happened quite a few times, so the list of things that need to be marked is quite long now.

Then there's the vegetarian thing. See, a lot of the folks attending were vegetarian, but it was never officially a vegetarian event. There used to be meat dishes too, but some of the vegetarians were super preachy, and over the years just less and less meat eaters came, and now there's basically none, and if you say you eat meat you'll get weird looks. So meat isn't banned, but nobody brings it. But some folks are still kinda paranoid about it, like people get accused all the time of being secret meat eaters who are hiding meat in the food.

And actually really it's mostly vegan now, like if you're just vegetarian even that's considered sorta suspicious, because you're carnivore-adjacent. People do still bring stuff with dairy in it, but someone will pull you aside and tell you that dairy just isn't something that the event does well.

Oh and the Facebook group was just constant drama. Like people would post things like "I saw a dish with pineapple in it! Don't you know I'm sensitive to pineapple? Why do you want me to die?" and there'd be a massive blowup thread about it, and every time it happened a bunch more people would quit the group. This happened all the time and there would always be this huge drama and it was just exhausting to keep track of it all.

So now the potluck is still going on, but you have to be super careful about what you bring, because there are some really picky eaters there and they'll make a big fuss if you get it wrong. So a lot of people have been put off trying to bring any food to it, because they didn't want to risk upsetting anyone. So now there's less food, and less variety, and a lot of the really good cooks have given up on it, and fewer people are coming to it every year.

But the latest thing on the Facebook group is people saying they don't like having to see the foods that they don't eat, so they want the staff to set everything up so that they can avoid having to see certain foods if they don't want to, and people are saying things like "look, we need this because if I see a cupcake I'm not going to be able to help myself", no seriously I swear to god.

Like people want it to be a restaurant that specialises in catering to every individual food preference, even though it's a potluck where all the food is being brought for free and there's fewer and fewer people willing to bother. But anyone who doesn't like how it's changed must be a secret carnivore who longs for the days of beefzone. I mean, I said something about it and now apparently I'm a mean old grouch who wants to make everyone eat spinach.

You know what, maybe let's go somewhere else for lunch.
posted by automatronic at 6:56 PM on November 27, 2023 [22 favorites]

automatronic: why not just ask potluck participants to include an ingredients card with everything that's in their dish so that people can make informed decisions without needing to out themselves?
posted by creatrixtiara at 7:05 PM on November 27, 2023 [6 favorites]

I am not actually against this feature!

And if there were a button in the software that could be pressed to turn this feature on, I would be in favour of pressing it. In fact, I would love if it had been turned on years ago, because then people could have been encouraged to use that feature to hide things they dislike, rather than starting shouty metatalks about it.

But there is no such button. The site doesn't have that feature. It would have to be developed, and at the rate of progress seen on other things, that seems pretty unlikely to happen on any meaningful timescale. Working on it would consume a lot of time and money that could be spent doing other things.

Where I see this going, cynically but at this point perhaps realistically, is that becomes the next feature that's put on the priority list but never happens, and in the meantime its absence gets used as the latest way for people to blame the site for them getting upset, rather than dealing with the reality that this will always be a thing that happens when you interact with other humans on the internet.

What I am opposed to is not this feature, or any other specific feature, but the whole philosophy that the site should be able to cater to everybody's emotional needs; that anybody seeing something which upsets them is a failure that should have been preventable. Not because I want anybody to be upset, but because preventing it happening is not an achievable goal in reality, for a site with finite resources and volunteer contributors.

But someone already made this point far better than I could, in this fantastic comment from several months ago.
posted by automatronic at 7:34 PM on November 27, 2023 [25 favorites]

But people keep bringing surströmming to the potluck.
posted by Baethan at 8:42 PM on November 27, 2023

Update on the iOS UserScripts App: I tested a couple more scripts. My favorite, MeFi Navigator, seems to work as well as it does on desktop (though, as on desktop, if downloading an original copy of it, you'll need to change the top three instances of "http://" to "https://").

But I don't think the diediedead script will work currently, because I think(?) it relies on greasemonkey's settings/options panel, which isn't surfaced in the mobile version of UserScripts, for typing in your chosen muted users and for picking what level of muting to currently display.

Best bet if anyone really wants this would be if someone could tweak the script to make it easy enough to hard-code your username list directly in the .js file (and possibly to hardcode a desired default preference, if it doesn't turn muting on by default).

(I think it's probably just a matter of pre-populating the userFilters array, but it's likely beyond my level of savviness to figure out where it's safe to do that.)
posted by nobody at 9:26 PM on November 27, 2023 [1 favorite]

Many people would find this valuable, and even greater - no one has to use it.

MeFi is changing, and hiring a part time web developer. I don't see new features as impossible any more, and that's exciting!
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:08 AM on November 28, 2023 [8 favorites]

Use the Recent Activity feature.

Add posts you want to follow to your Activity even if you don't comment.

Remove posts from your Activity if the conversation disappoints you.

If this killfile thing is added, then there would need to be something like:

[1 comment by BlockedUser hidden]

to keep things readable.

My vote—if there's any concern for adopting current safety standards seen everywhere else—would be for instantiating profile view/memail blocks first; and stop directing people already violating the guidelines in threads to harass each other directly instead.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:53 AM on November 28, 2023 [1 favorite]

What I am opposed to is not this feature, or any other specific feature, but the whole philosophy that the site should be able to cater to everybody's emotional needs; that anybody seeing something which upsets them is a failure that should have been preventable.

I find this framing as baffling as I found the potluck analogy manipulative ("yes, it was bad when people brought poisoned food--but can you BELIEVE those vegetarians!!!").

A fairly value-neutral request ("on this site with filter prominently in the name, it would be nice to be able to filter things") gets reframed as something more like, we would like protection from ever being upset. We would like Metafilter to be a nice warm bed--a crib with sturdy bars to keep us safe. With the hidden corollary that underlies much of the recent concerns over the site: If people are too protected then we no longer have a site where normal people can talk in normal ways about normal things, the way we used to do, before the emotional needs of certain populations changed the way we communicate, for the worse.

I kind of wish people would just be explicit about that last bit. It feels like it'd be more honest. "We can't talk anymore because you lot keep getting hurt and offended and make a big show of leaving" is a topic for discussion in a way that "this feature will fail because you want it 'to cater to everybody's emotional needs'" is not.
posted by mittens at 7:34 AM on November 28, 2023 [14 favorites]

Mittens: I think there's a bit of a gray area here.

The potluck analogy didn't bother me as much, because I think that it captured a nuance that I think is often missing from these conversations; people were not just getting upset that there was a dearth of food, they were getting upset that food they disliked was even PRESENT in the FIRST place. It was bad when people brought poisoned food, but it was also bad when someone brought in something with pineapple in it, and the pineapple-haters started a heated exchange online about "how DARE someone bring something with pineapple in it, AT ALL!"

The way I see the potluck analogy going is: you have people who bring things with meat in them, you have people who bring vegetarian things. And among the guests you have meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters. Now, logically the people who don't eat meat could simply choose from among the vegetarian options. THAT'S not the problem being reported - the problem being reported is that a couple of the vegetarians were objecting to the presence of meat AT ALL.

And THAT I think is a nuance in this discussion that's being overlooked in discussions like this - not so much here, but elsewhere. There are those who don't want to stop at being able to choose for themselves what they want to see or partake in - there are those who want to eliminate their disliked option as being choices FOR ANYONE. And THAT, I think, is the reported problem in the potluck analogy - it's not just "those pesky vegetarians", it's "the people who don't think ANYTHING they don't like should be in the room in the first place."

The reason that's such a sticky point is that it's really hard to figure out where to draw that line. Most people WOULD be able to handle this kind of choice by saying "oh, this has pineapple in it? Oh, shoot, I can't eat that. Oh well, I'll pick something else instead." And most people contributing something to a potluck ARE responsible enough to flag things with "hey, this has pineapple in it" or "hey this has meat" or whatever, so that the guests can make an informed choice. But on both sides, you have some people who are stubborn and think "pfft, it's ridiculous that some people don't like pineapple, I just won't tell anyone that's in it." Or "how DARE they include pineapple in ANYTHING? Who knows what kind of cross-contamination might have happened from across the room???"

MIND YOU - this is not to say that there aren't people who really ARE allergic to pineapple to the point that even just being in the room with it would trigger a response. But odds are that these people would have known before even eating anything, and might not even attend anyway because of the risk. But simply seeing something had pineapple in it, and then pitching a fit because "some people are allergic, did you think of that?" is a bit of an overreaction. Just like "it's STUPID to not eat pineapple, I'm just gonna sneak it in" is an overreaction.

And again, NOT EVERYONE DOES THIS. The vast majority of people would respond responsibly to the notice that "hey, this has pineapple in it" by simply avoiding it. I think that all people are looking for is a way TO be informed about what is lurking in a topic.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:53 AM on November 28, 2023 [7 favorites]

I find this analogy painfully tortured and wish we could discuss the actual things instead. Also it's making me hungry. 🍍
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:08 AM on November 28, 2023 [19 favorites]

There are those who don't want to stop at being able to choose for themselves what they want to see or partake in - there are those who want to eliminate their disliked option as being choices FOR ANYONE.

Meh, I didn’t want to post again but…we’re talking about a personal filter/block feature right? Basically just choosing what to put on your plate.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:14 AM on November 28, 2023 [14 favorites]

I find this analogy painfully tortured and

the potluck analogy works well for me because it's messy, it's complex, it's various humans with various conflicting concerns and demands (sometimes not even conscious) somehow (yet very understandably) making a hash of what had been a "good thing". I put "good thing" in quotes because when is anything anywhere anytime an entirely good thing for everybody? Hell, some people don't even like cats, and they've got reasons.

this is not to say that there aren't people who really ARE allergic to pineapple to the point that even just being in the room with it would trigger a response. But odds are that these people would have known before even eating anything, and might not even attend anyway because of the risk. But simply seeing something had pineapple in it, and then pitching a fit because "some people are allergic, did you think of that?" is a bit of an overreaction.

I've mentioned an in-law of mine before around here. He suffers from chronic pain, an old injury that makes basic sitting excruciating. So for him, even a simple, friendly "sit down, make yourself comfortable" could be viewed as an offence. For the record, he doesn't take it that way, he realizes he represents an extreme case, so he's more likely to just politely duck out of a situation that requires sitting than to make an issue of it. He's certainly not going to take a "pineapple stand" and demand that there be no chairs anywhere on the premises lest he be offensively reminded of his disability -- that would be ridiculous. Wouldn't it?

And yeah, he's the kind of guy who would enjoy an old school potluck because they're generally informal, nobody's going to worry if he doesn't sit at the dinner table for a prolonged while ...
posted by philip-random at 8:24 AM on November 28, 2023 [2 favorites]

But like....asking for a personal way to block a post or a comment is the opposite of demanding everyone not look at a thing, so I don't understand how the food thing tracks. Oh well.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:30 AM on November 28, 2023 [13 favorites]

Yeah, I'm just keeping shit I don't want to eat from ending up on my plate, in the way least likely to impose on anyone else's tastes.
posted by otsebyatina at 8:40 AM on November 28, 2023 [9 favorites]

the analogy is for the complexity of any situation wherein various people have different needs, preferences, concerns. I think it works because it acknowledges this and argues for finding ways to accommodate the "greater good" (ie: a fun get together) rather than emphasizing my making personal demands so I can get exactly what I want. So yes, muting options (or whatever they end up being) would serve to keep the local peace.
posted by philip-random at 8:44 AM on November 28, 2023 [1 favorite]

Mmm, spinach.
posted by Too-Ticky at 8:57 AM on November 28, 2023

I would like this discussion better if I could block the whole potluck derail.

This seems to be a discussion between people who would like a feature that would improve their experience of the site, and people who are worried about nebulous knock-on effects (and maybe believe everyone should use the site the way they want people to use it).

It was interesting to peek at some of the earlier discussions linked upthread. In 2005 or so, mathowie was basically, like, you’re on your own if you want to do this with a script or something, but we don’t have the resources. In 2011, the site admin response was just “this will never happen” presumably because it was counter to the essence of the site.

I think people would have wildly different opinions about how this should be prioritized versus other site changes. But I am a little surprised that there is such a large contingent of folks who simply don’t want it to exist.
posted by snofoam at 9:11 AM on November 28, 2023 [12 favorites]

I, for one, welcome our new potluck analogy overlords. Hell, I’m thinking of submitting a MeTa to propose a MeTa-specific sidebar for a rotating buffet of site ideas/complaints that could change monthly—a sort of Celebratory Grievance Potluck Menu, if you will.
posted by cupcakeninja at 10:26 AM on November 28, 2023 [2 favorites]

we’re talking about a personal filter/block feature right? Basically just choosing what to put on your plate.

Right, and most people would use it accordingly. Where we get into the weeds is what that filter looks like:

* Is it a filter that Metafilter rolls out that will let you pre-screen yourself from even seeing something in the first place, based on trigger words you've self-selected?
* Is it a filter that you apply AFTER you have seen something?
* Is it a filter that someone else implements that you can add on to your browser that will let you do these things?
* Is it a filter that Metafilter rolls out that renders ENTIRE TOPICS forbidden, regardless?
* Is it a filter that allows topics but lets you screen out comments that mention certain self-defined trigger topics or words?

Each of these approaches has a whole host of flaws.

And that's only if we all agree on, and act accordingly about, what things are and are not controversial. There are 3 topics that the mods tend to block out of the gate, largely because conversations about these topics have never gone well. These are all three very, very different subjects, however - ones that are not "blatantly obvious" in terms of being Forbidden Topics. Most of us can likely agree that discussions in favor of white supremacists are not going to go well. But - we would likely disagree as to whether posts about declawing cats are tantamount to posts about white supremacists - and yet, declawing cats is one of those "we do NOT do this well" topics. It's really not as universally-agreed-upon as to which topics are Serious Topics About Which We Should Tread Carefully.

Which puts the onus on the user to exercise the caution. Which brings us right back to the thing about filters, and - where one draws the line on what those filters look like.

Another thing to consider - what if you have the people who DO want to participate in the discussion, but are very, very vocal about their respective sides, pro AND con? A lot of heat would be generated, and they have agreed to participate, but are they truly participating in a productive way? Sometimes it's not a topic in and of itself that turns people off, sometimes it's how one or two other people are handling that topic.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:48 AM on November 28, 2023 [2 favorites]

Which is why the ability to mute one or two users is SO helpful.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:09 AM on November 28, 2023 [2 favorites]

These are still kind of solved problems in the world.the fairly common set would probably be:

Block user= I don’t see posts from or comments from that user. I personally like the FB snooze button but that’s a bells and whistles thing.
“Hide this post” - hides the post. Would be best from the actual front page.
“Hide this tag” - hides that tag (imperfect obvs) - already exists but you can’t do it from the post itself which I think would be best practice. I think this would improve FanFare for people a lot if they could avoid all MCU or whatever.

Keyword might be a lot but there’s that option.

It would be possible to start there and refine after.
posted by warriorqueen at 11:15 AM on November 28, 2023 [5 favorites]

Where we get into the weeds is what that filter looks like

The original request was really quite simple. 'Block' this specific user, 'Hide' this particular thread.
posted by ryanrs at 11:26 AM on November 28, 2023 [4 favorites]

The original request was really quite simple. 'Block' this specific user, 'Hide' this particular thread.

And yet this discussion has reached over 130 comments, which suggests that maybe it ISN'T quite as simple as that.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 12:32 PM on November 28, 2023

The original request was really quite simple. 'Block' this specific user, 'Hide' this particular thread.

Indeed - a simple feature that almost every other forum I can think of has. I really do believe this is necessary for MeFi and would improve almost everyone's experience. Fingers crossed for the future.
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:54 PM on November 28, 2023 [4 favorites]

The longer this thread goes on, the more I want this feature.
posted by snofoam at 1:42 PM on November 28, 2023 [19 favorites]

I think this would improve FanFare for people a lot if they could avoid all MCU or whatever.

This is a perfect "just scroll past" situation.
posted by Klipspringer at 1:54 PM on November 28, 2023 [1 favorite]

We often say "If you have nothing nice to say, feel free to skip this thread" or "Don't argue with other responses in an Ask MeFi thread", but we don't provide the easiest way people can do this.

I am on a glorious vacation at the moment. Please forgive me if I have missed some nuance.

My preference would be that we don't have a block post/block user but I really don't care.

I am trying to understand the initial request, though.

The "easiest way people can do this" is simply scrolling on by, right? That's ben implemented forever. Flag it and move on is part of MeFi DNA and I would even argue that's more than the easiest way.

Seriously. Flagging takes extra effort. Blocking user and/or post would take extra effort. Scrolling right on by should be the least effort?

We all interact with MeFi in the way that works best for us. I would be fine with this pony request if there is a significant call for it.

I'm just not seeing that yet, and still think there is a huge backlog of tech issues to resolve first.

Also:

, hiding threads is better because if you keep shoving it in my face, I will feel compelled to go shit up that thread.

That's not OP, but someone who has spent a significant time in this thread advocating for blocks. No one is forced to have metafilter posts "shoved in [their] face."

"Shit[ing] up [a] thread" for that reason? Like, you literally can't scroll beyond it? I don't think that's the persuasive argument one may think it is.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 2:01 PM on November 28, 2023 [3 favorites]

This wonderful community never ceases to amaze me! Someone will selflessly take time out of their hard-earned vacation to tell another member that they don’t really need a thing they want. They even took the time to explain that scrolling exists. It’s the kind of thing that makes this place so special.
posted by snofoam at 2:32 PM on November 28, 2023 [17 favorites]

The longer this thread goes on, the more I want this feature.

You already have a technological solution to help manage your engagement with this thread ("remove from activity"). Yet you've opened the thread and posted in it six times. So what makes you think that a further technological solution will give you self-control?
posted by Klipspringer at 2:42 PM on November 28, 2023 [2 favorites]

I believe that the longer this thread goes on, the more everyone will want this feature, even those who have been arguing against it. Just doing my part!
posted by snofoam at 2:47 PM on November 28, 2023 [13 favorites]

At least when it comes to reactive thread-hiding, I would very much like to know what the people asking for this feature need that the Recent Activity functionality doesn't satisfy, even if not as they would prefer (because it doesn't filter the standard front page view).

If you're not preemptively hiding threads based on their poster, then what's the difference between clicking a button to hide it, and not clicking the button to add it to your Activity?

It makes me feel like people don't use the features already provided. (See also the tag features.)

And, yes, I like that it's still a lot like a BBS here, and our version of newscan with it. Maybe it would help to have a view that folds in only new FPPs since last login, above the usual RA comment view?

So people see new posts, without having to revisit those they've already passed on adding.
posted by snuffleupagus at 3:31 PM on November 28, 2023 [3 favorites]

And yet this discussion has reached over 130 comments, which suggests that maybe it ISN'T quite as simple as that.

I believe the simplicity being referred to was the simplicity of the proposed changes, not the simplicity of whatever people manage to end up discussing when those changes are proposed.

I manage a small software development team, maintaining some long-lived projects. Unfortunately, my experience is that it's possible to take any potential feature into the weeds. I have worked with people that, whatever their intentions, manage to avoid change by bringing up tangential concerns and then saying that those concerns make any complete solution too complex. However, our team is usually not in the business of completely solving everything, so whenever I can act independently from those change-avoiders, I take my team's job to be finding and delivering whatever unambiguous wins I can. That often means making more incremental, small changes rather than providing a complete solution.

The objections raised to blocking commenters in terms of this resulting in confusing discussions do not apply to blocking posts. The objections raised regarding blocking posts by tag do not apply to users being able to manually click a button next to a post that says "hide this post from me.". As far as I can tell, the objections that remain are:

1. That will cost scarce developer time
2. This feature is analogous to an existing feature; why not use that?
3. You should just scroll past the FPPs you don't like
4. Users these days are too needy/censorious

I look forward to volunteering dev time when that's legal, and personally could not care a single whit less about 3 and 4, but I think 2 is important to hash out.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 3:43 PM on November 28, 2023 [12 favorites]

If you're not preemptively hiding threads based on their poster, then what's the difference between clicking a button to hide it, and not clicking the button to add it to your Activity?

Opting-in almost everything feels different from opting-out of just a couple posts?
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 3:45 PM on November 28, 2023 [8 favorites]

Obviously, the way to convince people that they don’t want to the ability to hide content from other users is to post lengthy diatribes about how such users are weak people with no self-control, failing to use the resources already available to them. If you are so dying to put someone in their place for wanting something that has no impact on you, join your HOA board and tell your neighbors they can’t build a shed or something.
posted by snofoam at 4:42 PM on November 28, 2023 [14 favorites]

On mobile, recent activity shows a ton of comments on every post (ok, 10), which is totally not how I use either the blue or the green. So for me I’d have to:

- add everything I’m interested in, which is a decision point I don’t currently have to worry about
- surf to that page, which doesn’t separate blue/green/grey (I don’t think) and I read those at very different times in my day and life
- scroll past so much to get to the one topic I wanted to dip back into

I may not be using it right because recent activity never has been a way to view content for me.

Also, still just saying - there is a benefit to new/less frequent posters to have more standard tools work the way they generally do.
posted by warriorqueen at 5:08 PM on November 28, 2023 [5 favorites]

Tumblr (or at least the Xkit plugin) lets you filter out posts based on keywords you don't want to see, and it hasn't negatively affected people's ability to discuss whatever they want on there. Ao3 has filters so you can filter out fanfic tags you don't like - and that's been a way more useful method than the people yelling at fanfic writers to not write anything on that topics ever.

what if you have the people who DO want to participate in the discussion, but are very, very vocal about their respective sides, pro AND con?

Then they can have that discussion. This filter idea isn't stopping them from having that discussion. It just means that the people who don't want to see that discussion don't have to see it.

I don't see why a filter on the reader end has to lead to people not being able to opt into discussions they want to opt in to. It's not like one person's filter choices will apply to anyone else.

I'm really baffled at the "competing needs" claim here. Someone not reading what you're writing doesn't infringe on your ability to write it.
posted by creatrixtiara at 5:18 PM on November 28, 2023 [11 favorites]

I like this place but not enough to risk RSI from scrolling overmuch. It's been much more comfortable to be able to limit the longwinded to ~10 lines and preemptively hide the comments I don't care to read.

If our soon to be expanded tech team chooses to implement some quality of life fixes along these lines I'll certainly welcome them, but I'm also content to continue to handle such things on my end.
posted by otsebyatina at 5:42 PM on November 28, 2023

Yeah, what warriorqueen said. I find Recent Activity shows way too many old comments to be readable. If the threads I like have 1, 1, 5, 8, and 3 new comments, I don't know why I would want to scroll through ten comments of each of them as required in RA, when I can jump to the latest comments in the MyMefi view.

I have way more posts I want to read or don't mind scrolling through than posts I want to hide. So having to add posts I want to read to RA is more work than occasionally adding a negative tag to MyMefi for posts I want to hide.

Also to find new posts to add to Recent Activity, I would still have to interact with the unfiltered front page. I have no idea why RA been suggested as a better alternative than using MyMefi with negative tags (which shows me the entire front page, minus posts with the tags I've noped out of).

MyMefi works pretty well for me. It would be nice to also be able to say, "hide posts with these keywords" because some people's tags are more chatty than informative, but I understand if there are other technical priorities.
posted by creepygirl at 8:47 PM on November 28, 2023 [3 favorites]

This wonderful community never ceases to amaze me! Someone will selflessly take time out of their hard-earned vacation to tell another member that they don’t really need a thing they want.

Please show me in my comment where I said the functionality request is not needed. I asked for clarification as I believe the functionality is already there.

I said: We all interact with MeFi in the way that works best for us. I would be fine with this pony request if there is a significant call for it.

How is that me telling another member they shouldn't have a thing they want?

Me mentioning vacation was precisely acknowledging that I may have missed some parts of this conversation and therefore might bow out more quickly.

"Selflessly taking time out of a hard earned vacation"? Please.

If you had actually read my comment I was curious/neutral on the OP's idea.
posted by a non mouse, a cow herd at 11:32 PM on November 28, 2023

You said you don't see a big call for it.

Is this how things will always be, though? It's unclear that any of this discussion MATTERS. Is anyone important taking notes? Will there be higher-level talks about it later? Or is this absolutely pointless?

Who decides whether or not this feature request is doable? Who decides whether enough people want it?
posted by Baethan at 5:04 AM on November 29, 2023 [3 favorites]

I believe that the longer this thread goes on, the more everyone will want this feature, even those who have been arguing against it. Just doing my part!

If you are so dying to put someone in their place for wanting something that has no impact on you, join your HOA board and tell your neighbors they can’t build a shed or something.

Congratulations, you've convinced me. I'm now in favor of hiding users.
posted by snuffleupagus at 5:27 AM on November 29, 2023 [7 favorites]

> what if you have the people who DO want to participate in the discussion, but are very, very vocal about their respective sides, pro AND con?

Then they can have that discussion. This filter idea isn't stopping them from having that discussion. It just means that the people who don't want to see that discussion don't have to see it.

I wasn't clear about what I meant when I brought this point up, and that's on me....

My point is; I personally would very much like to participate in conversations about, say, cheese. However, I do NOT want to watch two very vocal opposing camps yell at each other about cheese and keep me from getting a word in edgewise. And - I'm not sure how we filter THAT, save for filtering out individual people.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:28 AM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

This is a good idea and I would love to see this site implement it. Block/mute functions are very common accessibility and safety features; while there will always be people who don't see the need for accessibility that doesn't affect them or their participation, this is not a good reason to not implement such a feature. Neither is it a matter of competing access--as I understand it, the request is for an end-user function that would have no effect on the ability for others to access the site's contents.

As a general comment, responding to an accessibility request with any form of "why don't you just..." or "you can just..." is usually somewhere between unhelpful and ableist. Please show others the respect of believing that if they Could Just, they would.
posted by radiogreentea at 5:41 AM on November 29, 2023 [12 favorites]

EmpressCallipygos
threaded comments! The only way to deal with that sort of thing afaik.

Unless you limit people to 1 to 3 comments per thread, which is a ridiculous but also fun idea.

Threaded comments is another quality of life feature request that could be (probably has been?) it's own metatalk post. I'd be excited for it if it wasn't all depressingly hypothetical
posted by Baethan at 5:48 AM on November 29, 2023 [3 favorites]

*plonk*
posted by wenestvedt at 6:05 AM on November 29, 2023 [3 favorites]

However, I do NOT want to watch two very vocal opposing camps yell at each other about cheese and keep me from getting a word in edgewise. And - I'm not sure how we filter THAT, save for filtering out individual people.

That is exactly what I'm advocating for, and am already using with Mute A Filter, as are others. Filtering out, by graying out, individual people's comments. This reminds me not to read their comments, or take much mind of them. It is a button in a user profile that when clicked, adds the mute, when unclicked, drops the mute. It's easy and helpful. It would be great if MeFi had this option for everyone.

I don't see any problem with adding in the ability to filter out individual users.
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:26 AM on November 29, 2023 [6 favorites]

Also - not only do I not see a problem with it, the reason I am advocating for a muting/graying out ability so hard is because Metafilter needs users to stick around! And new ones to join and stick around!

Of course, many people *might* be able to scroll past that one person that bugs them, but if it makes the experience that much more pleasurable to filter them, why not have that feature, like many sites have, because it's a valuable ability for users?
posted by tiny frying pan at 6:37 AM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

Metafilter: Shitting up threads.

If MeFites can't observe existing rules, we'll make rules they can observe. I want to ensure I don't see anything I don't like when I click on this site. I'm interested in the opinions of only three MeFites. The rest of you should be relegated to cyber purgatory. (etc. & so forth forever.)

Wait, make that four MeFites. I forgot about Genjiland Proust. And Corb.

Let me get back to you on this.
posted by mule98J at 7:00 AM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

and then there are those users who only really annoy me in certain contexts. For instance, [user name] in political threads, particularly ones that concern themselves with corporate greed. I don't even disagree with them, just find them ponderous, heavy handed, predictable. But get them talking about [cultural thing they have a passion for and solid knowledge of] and I'm all ears -- the last thing I want is less of them in the discussion.

Am I now wanting a muting function for [user name] but only in threads that contain the following four hashtags? Or maybe it would be a subsite specific thing. Or ... ?
posted by philip-random at 8:04 AM on November 29, 2023

and then there are those users who only really annoy me in certain contexts. For instance, [user name] in political threads, particularly ones that concern themselves with corporate greed. I don't even disagree with them, just find them ponderous, heavy handed, predictable. But get them talking about [cultural thing they have a passion for and solid knowledge of] and I'm all ears -- the last thing I want is less of them in the discussion.

Hence my own comment that "this actually isn't as simple as we all think it might be...."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:25 AM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

To be clear - I AGREE with those saying that there should be some way to filter out things as we choose. I think it would only benefit.

But I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a single filter that WOULD account for all the very great many ways in which a given person may want to filter things, and that poses a problem for coming up with one in-house solution. A handful of different user-generated browser extensions to choose from may be the best way forward after all. The one I used worked for me because I was just trying to filter a person, and that's how it was billed and it worked a treat. (I didn't even know that it also filtered topics.) Using My Mefi may also work best for other types of applications, and Recent Activity would also work best for still others. And for a rare few, having Personal Strength Of Will To Ignore Stuff may suit them best.

I just don't think it's quite as easy to come up with a One Stop Shopping kind of solution, is all, and having multiple tools to choose from (some in-house, some not) will probably satisfy the most people.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:30 AM on November 29, 2023

and then there are those users who only really annoy me in certain contexts. For instance, [user name] in political threads, particularly ones that concern themselves with corporate greed. I don't even disagree with them, just find them ponderous, heavy handed, predictable. But get them talking about [cultural thing they have a passion for and solid knowledge of] and I'm all ears -- the last thing I want is less of them in the discussion.

Hence my own comment that "this actually isn't as simple as we all think it might be...."

When you're in that thread with that user, you can mute them. While still seeing their comments if you want to read. And unmute them later. The entire time, nothing is hidden. Nothing is missing. It's as simple as it could possibly be.
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:39 AM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

Perfect is the enemy of good. “Hide post / tags / user” is a basic option available on countless other forums. Will it satisfy everyone 100% of the time? Probably not. Doesn’t mean the site shouldn’t look into implementing it.

Personally, I don’t want to mess with third-party tools for this. I access Metafilter on multiple devices and don’t feel like setting up stuff multiple times.
posted by Diskeater at 8:43 AM on November 29, 2023 [26 favorites]

The site needs cash. Sell various features (including muting) as separate extras that you can have enabled for twenty dollars a pop. Same as in town.
posted by pracowity at 11:41 AM on November 29, 2023 [4 favorites]

I would pay for a muting feature as long as I can also pay to make people read my posts even if they've muted me.
posted by birthday cake at 12:16 PM on November 29, 2023 [10 favorites]

But I'm not sure it's possible to come up with a single filter that WOULD account for all the very great many ways in which a given person may want to filter things, and that poses a problem for coming up with one in-house solution.

Yes. There won't be one solution. Filtering would likely be implemented as a few different features, each small enough and simple enough that we are confident that if we had just that feature, it would be an improvement for the site, even if it doesn't address every possible scenario or need. At the risk of repeating myself (and perhaps I should take a little break from the thread to avoid taking up too much space), the existence of an infinite number of possible filtering methods or criteria should not stop us from moving forward with simple filtering methods that will improve the site.
posted by a faded photo of their beloved at 12:36 PM on November 29, 2023 [11 favorites]

Filtering means processing. I don't know how much extra it would cost to run the site, but it's got to incur some extra processing if everyone browsing a post suddenly needs MetaFilter to check and possibly filter every comment in the post just for them. Check the first comment. Does the current user block the commenter? Include or exclude that comment. Check the second comment. And so on until the page is custom-built and ready to be displayed for that user. Maybe there's a more efficient way (skip all the checking if the user doesn't filter anyone, for example), but it can't be free.
posted by pracowity at 12:58 PM on November 29, 2023

OK, now people are just brainstorming fake objections.

Querying the database to render pages for logged-in users is the basic premise of the site. Metafilter digs through your user data when rendering every single comment, just to know whether to put a + or - in the favorites field.
posted by ryanrs at 1:13 PM on November 29, 2023 [13 favorites]

Yeah, no way is that a noticeable increase in server load in 2023, even allowing for the fact that the site runs on an antiquated system of levers and pulleys.
posted by Klipspringer at 1:19 PM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

Hey, it's a modern system of levers and pulleys!
posted by pracowity at 1:35 PM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

I don’t know if this was a joke but wow, this is so different from my perspective. I’d much rather people block me if they find me irritating. I don’t really have an expectation that my comments must be read…obviously I hope they contribute and I like the community. But I already know I’m not to everyone’s taste and this is a place people come for essentially recreation. Sure, it’s not a great feeling but I’d much prefer a silent block than upsetting someone over and over.

This is basically what I was coming into this thread to say. Some people really don't like the way I comment. Which is reasonable! I often write long things, my tone of voice can rub people the wrong way, and on top of that I'm a bit of a sucker for feuding (which is why I'd love to be able to block people too). And while I can handle people bristling at me, taking issue with things I say or how they say them, and generally not totally loving my presence on this site, there have been a few instances over the last decade-plus where a person got really resentful and bitter and mean over the fact of my existence.

I had to reach out to the mods over one instance where someone's focus on me started feeling unnervingly like stalking, but there've been other cases where I've found a little clique of users on Twitter or Reddit who made a sport out of talking about how much they thought I sucked. And I'd rather those people have an easy way to not dwell on me, or to stew on my comments, both because I'd genuinely rather not upset them and because I'd rather not deal with them taking their ire out on me. It sucks when people feel like they have the right to "get even" with you because they take your existence personally, and would like to level the playing field by personally targeting you back. And when I was younger, I was also a lot more prone to believing that I was personally responsible if someone decided to get malicious or abusive; a couple of times, I got really in my head about how vicious someone was being towards me, in ways that I'd rather not have had to deal with.

At the same time, there were occasions where I was absolutely the person doing this back: someone would get under my skin, and I'd find myself reacting to their contributions to a thread as if it was a personal affront. Occasionally that felt justified, and sometimes it was just personal neurosis, but it doesn't matter whether the reasons were petty or reasonable—either way, I was getting caught up over somebody else deciding to post on a website, and no good came out of that ever. It would have been nice to have an easy way not to dwell on people who made me feel unpleasant. Nowadays, I block and mute aggressively, and my state of mind is way more chipper because of it.

I try to be a better community member nowadays, and I try to be kinder and more considerate to other people in general, but I'd be lying if I said that certain people didn't rub me the wrong way. Does it matter who those people are? Not in the least. But it's not like I'd miss out on anything meaningful if I muted all their posts in a thread. In fact, I have to make a conscious effort not to respond to anything they contribute, because any response that I have would probably suck ass. I want those people to get to post however they want to post, and I'd rather not be the person making them feel like their voice is less welcome here. And while I do have willpower aplenty, it doesn't hurt to systematically give people the option to intentionally step away from someone who's unhealthy for them. I'd like it for me, and I'd like it for all the people who just read the first sentence of this comment and instantly knew that I was the person who'd written it, because of how viscerally they hate every little detail of what I say and how I say it. (No hard feelings, y'all. ♥)
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 2:15 PM on November 29, 2023 [11 favorites]

You are so not America's dad, man from near Philadelphia.
posted by y2karl at 4:42 PM on November 29, 2023 [2 favorites]

METAFILTER: now people are just brainstorming fake objections.
posted by philip-random at 6:36 PM on November 29, 2023 [3 favorites]

I appreciate the people in this thread that have laid out how they feel about MetaFilter as a community and why they earnestly feel such features don't fit in. I don't agree, but I appreciate the perspective.

I am slackjawed at the sheer number of users who couldn't stop there and decided that being straight-up fucking rude to people was the way to put this idea in its place (i.e. in the mass grave with the bodies of the users who liked it who therefore clearly don't deserve to be here). Asking for extraordinarily simple tools to manage your own experience on the site is in no way the same thing as demanding the site cater to every snowflake.

I don't know how much extra it would cost to run the site, but it's got to incur some extra processing if everyone browsing a post suddenly needs MetaFilter to check and possibly filter every comment in the post just for them.

This could be done entirely client-side and it would cost exactly zero "extra processing." (Even setting aside ryanrs's point that the server is doing this processing already.)
posted by tubedogg at 9:50 PM on November 29, 2023 [10 favorites]

I would pay for a muting feature as long as I can also pay to make people read my posts even if they've muted me.

This is the second time now that someone here thought breaking someone's attempt at boundary setting (whether by making the muting redundant or by wanting names of people that blocked them) is funny.

What's so funny about it?
posted by creatrixtiara at 7:52 AM on November 30, 2023 [15 favorites]

well it's sort of ironic that metafilter, in a broad sense, is filtering out the web to here and now we're discussing options to filter out people and posts here. if management can make this happen, why not?

what's funny is when using old grease monkey script, use your own username and see what happens.
posted by clavdivs at 2:57 PM on November 30, 2023 [2 favorites]

Wait, make that four MeFites.

While I find this immensely flattering, I need to protest that sometimes I don’t find my opinions all that interesting. I’d trust Kattullus, Fizz, and Frowner before me at the very least, and a whole raft of people sadly gone.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:55 PM on November 30, 2023 [3 favorites]

Your comment appears to be blank, please try again.
posted by clavdivs at 4:59 PM on November 30, 2023 [1 favorite]

What's so funny about it?

The thought that I would care so much about my mid posts that I would pay to ensure that everyone reads them?

I would love a mute button but I don't agree that reading something boring or annoying that a stranger has written, which is not directed at you in any way, constitutes a boundary violation, and I find that framing very strange.
posted by birthday cake at 7:07 PM on November 30, 2023 [1 favorite]

I think that this discussion is a great example of the socio-political zeitgeist resulting from the paradigm shift and economic instability resulting from the Covid/Trump years, war in Europe and now in the Middle East. I'm not familiar with politics outside of North America but I suspect that many other countries are experiencing something similar. I feel that there's a very strong desire to be given tools that block out the many things that we don't want to hear anymore, and I think that's a reasonable reaction to the last 4-5 years. Many want the tools given to them by those in charge while others don't expect that to happen and are finding their own ways of silencing the noise. There are those who are worried about what might be considered censorship and those on the other side saying that being given the choice about what they read is a good thing. The thing is, this is really a discussion about ideology and as with all such discussions it's quite passionate but ultimately there's no winning or losing, there's just what's going to happen and what isn't going to happen; what people will do and what people won't do. So it goes.

Or something like that.
posted by ashbury at 8:26 PM on November 30, 2023 [9 favorites]

what the fuck, Matt.
posted by clavdivs at 8:31 PM on November 30, 2023 [3 favorites]

now everbody's confused
posted by philip-random at 10:12 PM on November 30, 2023

Okay genuine question.

Is there any chance that this feature might be implemented?

If not, is it worth arguing about?
posted by Zumbador at 1:19 AM on December 1, 2023 [3 favorites]

Really enjoying this thread's evolution into something that has the same relationship to a meta-discussion about a website in the same way that the New York Trilogy is a set of three detective novels. Good stuff here, folks.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:01 AM on December 1, 2023 [1 favorite]

cupcakeninja, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
posted by Too-Ticky at 4:37 AM on December 1, 2023

Too-Ticky, I was trying to allude obliquely to ashbury's comment, which I thought shifted the discussion well away from splitpeasoup's original, fairly pragmatic question and into a place of substantial abstraction. (The New York Trilogy is Paul Auster's meditative/metaphysical set of detective novels that have a somewhat orthogonal relationship to mainstream detective fiction, in some ways not unlike the relationship of Murakami or Borges to the average fantasy trilogy, or Angela Carter's tales do to pedestrian fairytale retellings.) Sometimes MeTas stay practical, sometimes they become acrimonious, and sometimes they become philosophical, but I thought that particular comment was a true zoom-out to the 30,000-foot view and really enjoyed it. MeTa is supposed to be functionally oriented, I think, but because this is a discussion forum, I try to appreciate good discussion on any part of the site.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:44 AM on December 1, 2023 [4 favorites]

Threaded comments is another quality of life feature request that could be (probably has been?) it's own metatalk post

How does blocking work with threaded comments? When a non-blocked user replies to a blocked user's comment, is it shown or not?

I just think the community needs to bottom out some of the design issues here before the staff race ahead with implementation.
posted by Klipspringer at 4:53 AM on December 1, 2023 [1 favorite]

I just think the community needs to bottom out some of the design issues here before the staff race ahead with implementation.

I genuinely have no idea whether or not this is sarcasm
posted by Baethan at 5:05 AM on December 1, 2023

It's not particularly a request based on the current zeitgeist, since users have been asking for it since the year 2000.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:22 AM on December 1, 2023

How does blocking work with threaded comments? When a non-blocked user replies to a blocked user's comment, is it shown or not?

In Reddit, at least, if someone responds to a comment from a person you've blocked, you can see their comment.

You can also see the blocked person's comment, but it's collapsed, so that you have to click on the username to view it.

I'm sure there are many ways to handle this.

I'm kind of baffled by the pushback against this idea to make it possible to hide certain people's comments.

It doesn't affect anyone else. It's exactly the same as if you just said "Hmm, Zumbador again, oh my God no thanks I'm skipping over that comment" except it's a lot easier to skip.
posted by Zumbador at 6:31 AM on December 1, 2023 [10 favorites]

I started this thread feeling like there would be something...distasteful about the site itself providing tools for muting comments (and wishing we still lived in a world where everyone could filter things however they like through their own browsers), but I think I've come around on the issue. I especially like the sound of the graying-out that tiny frying pan describes the mute-a-filter plugin doing. I'm not sure it would be great for there to be -- by default -- a mute button next to every comment/username on the site, but if it's a feature you opt into from your settings page that becomes a non-issue.
posted by nobody at 6:49 AM on December 1, 2023 [2 favorites]

Right now, if you don't want to see comments from a particular MeFite, you have three options:
* Post in the thread telling them their comments aren't welcome;
* Flag their comment and ask a mod to delete it for every single person on the site;
* Leave the site entirely.

I would argue that giving people the option of quietly muting a poster would make them less likely to use any of the above three options, and would therefore make the site more conducive to thoughtful discussion.
posted by yankeefog at 9:13 AM on December 1, 2023 [6 favorites]

The biggest con of this feature, if the site were to implement it, would be the people that would simply have to comment whenever they hid something to make sure everyone was aware of what they were doing.

But then I suppose I could just hide anyone that makes those comments.

The system works!
posted by Diskeater at 9:26 AM on December 1, 2023 [3 favorites]

and there would be me saying fairly deep into a thread, "what about [important albeit obvious thing]?"

To which [person you have muted who has also muted certain other people but not you] would reply, "I already said that. I mean, come on, man, there aren't even that many comments in this thread."

To which [third person who hasn't muted anyone] would say, "What're you talking about? There are dozens of comments in this thread."
posted by philip-random at 9:52 AM on December 1, 2023 [3 favorites]

To which [person you have muted

that should be: [person I have muted
posted by philip-random at 9:59 AM on December 1, 2023

We shouldn't implement comment muting.

Mutes are harmful to communities because they let users paper over problematic behavior rather than addressing it, they create a chilling effect on communications between regular members when there is suspicion one has ignored the other, they give new users less of a chance to establish themselves. Implementing it would harm participation rates and discussion quality, and wouldn't increase safety because we're already well moderated.

Where mutes are helpful is in huge communities where sub-communities have identical conversations with accidental or trollish crossover between them, or where constant spam and attacks from new accounts is common. The Discourse forum project resisted ignores for a long time for community health reasons, and only gave in because they had some gigantic customers that were starting to have Twitter/Facebook levels of moderation challenges. We'll never have those problems here.

People who really want it can keep using browser extensions (all major browsers are bringing their extensions to their mobile apps, by the way.) It's good that people have to do some work to set up muting for themselves.
posted by michaelh at 10:02 AM on December 1, 2023 [4 favorites]

I already said that. I mean, come on, man, there aren't even that many comments in this thread."

Well, no...muting leaves the grayed out comment in place. You can see how many comments are in a thread the same if you have people muted or not.
posted by tiny frying pan at 10:42 AM on December 1, 2023 [1 favorite]

Right now, if you don't want to see comments from a particular MeFite, you have three options:
* Post in the thread telling them their comments aren't welcome;
* Flag their comment and ask a mod to delete it for every single person on the site;
* Leave the site entirely.

There's a 4th option -

* Install a browser extension that lets you filter by user. It worked for me!
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:14 AM on December 1, 2023 [1 favorite]

Right now, if you don't want to see comments from a particular MeFite, you have three options:
* Post in the thread telling them their comments aren't welcome;
* Flag their comment and ask a mod to delete it for every single person on the site;
* Leave the site entirely.

Don't forget the 4th option -

install a browser extension that lets you filter by user. It's working well for me!
posted by Klipspringer at 11:31 AM on December 1, 2023 [10 favorites]

While I find this immensely flattering....

I'm still working on volume two of "The Tale of Genji." I figure anyone who's read it all the way through will say something interesting sooner or later. I am patient. Don't let me down.
posted by mule98J at 12:01 PM on December 1, 2023 [2 favorites]

The doll of Genji.
posted by clavdivs at 3:15 PM on December 1, 2023

muting leaves the grayed out comment in place. You can see how many comments are in a thread the same if you have people muted or not.

Those is true for the particular implementation you are using but may not be true for others or a hypothetical site implementation.
posted by Mitheral at 4:44 PM on December 1, 2023

Well, yes, of course. But people keep discussing hypothetical problems that don't exist for Mute A Filter, and it's important to be clear these are solved problems.
posted by tiny frying pan at 5:21 PM on December 1, 2023

* Install a browser extension that lets you filter by user. It worked for me!
Yes! Very fair point.

As far as I can tell, there are three objections being raised to the idea of a built-in mute function:

1. It is a bad idea because how could a mute function possibly work?
2. It is a bad idea because it is contrary to the ethos of the site and will make conversation worse.
3. It is a good idea but it's not worth the effort and expense to implement.

The existence of a browser extension completely disproves argument 1. As Tiny Frying Pan points out, it's a solved problem.

It also tends to disprove argument 2. Every user who installs a muting extension is voting with their actions for the idea that muting is an active part of the MeFi ethos. And if muting was going to cause some sort of collapse of conversation-- well, muting is already happening. We should be able to point to some specific harm it has caused. The fact that we can't suggests that maybe it isn't that harmful.

Reason 3 is the only reason that is actively supported by the presence of a muting extension. Personally, I can't use Mute-A-Filter because I'm using Safari. I don't know what percentage of MeFites use Chrome or Firefox but if it's a substantial majority, then it's probably not worth spending MeFi's limited resources on letting the rest of us mute as well.
posted by yankeefog at 1:40 AM on December 2, 2023 [5 favorites]

We should be able to point to some specific harm it has caused. The fact that we can't suggests that maybe it isn't that harmful.

The effects of muting, whether positive or negative, are due to interaction not happening, and will largely be invisible. The most visible negative effect would be indistinguishable from inattention, which seems to happen on Mefi all the time.
posted by zamboni at 5:18 PM on December 2, 2023 [1 favorite]

I'm in favor of a feature to allow a user to hide individual posts from the front page.
posted by 4th number at 7:58 PM on December 2, 2023

Mutes are harmful to communities because they let users paper over problematic behavior rather than addressing it, they create a chilling effect on communications between regular members when there is suspicion one has ignored the other, they give new users less of a chance to establish themselves. Implementing it would harm participation rates and discussion quality, and wouldn't increase safety because we're already well moderated.

This appears to be a comment about a completely different website, ngl, in that it posits or ignores a lack of problematic user behaviour, a phantasmal chilling effect, an influx or noticeable quantity of new users, an already demonstrably plummeting participation rate and inarguably good moderation.

I also disagree with the purported affect of muting on each of these, but, horse/cart
posted by Sebmojo at 12:32 PM on December 3, 2023 [6 favorites]

People don't even read all the comments when they are visible. Why would muting be any different?
posted by creatrixtiara at 4:56 PM on December 3, 2023 [12 favorites]

Sebmojo, same site. I think MetaFilter has problems. I wouldn't want to waste time on a feature that will hurt it further. It sounds like you also think it has problems but think this would help fix them. That's a fair disagreement.
posted by michaelh at 9:56 PM on December 3, 2023

I don’t actually understand what there is to even argue about.

Central Canadian Roadside French Fry Concessions and Youtube Videos About Plagiarism That Are Tooooo Long And Lack Context, just to name two recent examples that had my eyes rolling right out of my goddamn skull multiple times.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:19 PM on December 3, 2023 [1 favorite]

If there's going to be a "mute this person" feature I'd really like a "mute this person for this post" feature. Or mute this person for posts tagged with these keywords. Maybe I learn a lot from example person in some areas, but is saying things I'd like to mute in a different area.
posted by aniola at 9:33 AM on December 4, 2023 [4 favorites]

Metafilter mirrors the world we're in, where we're all learning what works, what doesn't, what's right, what's hurtful. I hate the blocking feature on social media. It's anti-community. I have used the feature of graying out people who annoy me(
add comment filter, on individual profiles, it's a script); I end up reading their comments, but I'm better able to deal with my annoyance.

Many people read some metatalk threads, participate in some discussions, and come away with different understandings of what was understood. There's no synopsis, no wrap-up, no agreed on conclusion, or not usually.

Try really hard to not be a jerk. Try really hard to listen and comment thoughtfully. Make some good posts. Those are the rules as I understand them.
posted by theora55 at 7:08 PM on December 4, 2023 [3 favorites]

Try really hard to not be a jerk. Try really hard to listen and comment thoughtfully. Make some good posts. Those are the rules as I understand them.

Yes, those are the rules. But often rules alone aren't enough, and it makes sense to have an alternate solution so that bystanders aren't inconvenienced when someone can't follow the rules.

Consider: "try to put your phone away and not talk so other people can hear what's happening" is a generally-accepted rule at most movie theaters. But there are plenty of people who don't do that, and so that is why some movie theaters also have the policy that "if there is a person who is not following that rule they will be removed from the theater". The theater doesn't just let the guy sit there continuing to text or chat in the middle of the movie. They effectively....mute him, by removing him. That's because his continued presence would impact the other people who ARE following the rules.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:02 AM on December 5, 2023 [1 favorite]

That is an argument for moderation.
posted by Klipspringer at 6:16 AM on December 5, 2023 [1 favorite]

Not if they aren't breaking a rule, but are really really annoying, only to you, personally. Then muting is a great option.
posted by tiny frying pan at 7:04 AM on December 5, 2023 [12 favorites]

The block button is the ultimate source of dopamine. Use it.
By Joan Westenberg
The expectation to justify the use of the block function adds unnecessary emotional labour – and it’s invariably used to bully people into remaining exposed to abuse and bullshit. It's your right to choose who you interact with digitally, and you don't need a detailed explanation for your choices. Your online space, your rules.

There's a crucial difference between silencing someone and choosing not to engage with them. Blocking someone isn’t about denying them their right to speak. It’s about asserting your right not to listen. Consider your social media space like your home. You wouldn’t consider it censorship to close your door to a salesperson. Blocking someone from your digital space is about maintaining your peace and privacy, not suppressing their voice.
posted by chococat at 9:27 AM on December 5, 2023 [17 favorites]

Your online space, your rules. [...] Consider your social media space like your home.

The problem with applying this perspective to MetaFilter is that this is expressly not any one person's social media space (unless you want to call it Jessamyn's). In fact this is not really a social media space, compared to most of the other interpersonal niches filled by social media. It is a shared online space.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 11:28 AM on December 5, 2023 [1 favorite]

MeFi is a shared online space.

Yes, but it has many subspaces within, like a party with different groups of people having their own conversations.

If, for example, "Bob" doesn't break the rules, but he and I rub each other the wrong way, it doesn't hurt anyone else if some tool makes it easier to avoid him. Or if I would rather avoid certain conversations, it doesn't hurt anyone else if I have a tool that makes that easier.

Everyone else can just carry on. My "avoidance" tools are not changing anyone else's experience.
posted by NotLost at 11:49 AM on December 5, 2023 [8 favorites]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a mute stamping on a human face—forever.
posted by snofoam at 1:22 PM on December 5, 2023 [1 favorite]

In fact this is not really a social media space, compared to most of the other interpersonal niches filled by social media. It is a shared online space.

Right now, if I’m feeling overly engaged in something (which for me makes it harder to avoid without block/mute/snooze tools), my one true solution is to avoid the site entirely. That makes it less shared, especially if it’s a number of people.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:03 PM on December 5, 2023 [8 favorites]

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a mute stamping on a human face—forever.

and not being aware of it in any way because it doesn't affect you
posted by Sebmojo at 4:18 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]

Metafilter: you can't make anyone read what you post
also Metafilter: no muting!! it's anti-community to not read people's posts!!
posted by creatrixtiara at 4:34 PM on December 5, 2023 [5 favorites]

It is a shared online space.

And the people who maintain this shared online space have actually encouraged users to "flag and move on" or "just don't engage" if there's a topic or person who just rubs you the wrong way, or you're just sick of hearing of, etc. So the mods themselves are already encouraging people to do the very exact kind of "muting" that you and others are claiming would be a hindrance to the commons.

People in here are just asking for an easier way to do exactly that. In the outside world at large, which is also a shared IRL space, there are myriad ways to do that - if you're at an office party and Sid from accounting gets on your nerves, you just politely keep your distance from Sid and go hang out with Chet from shipping instead the whole night. If there's a town hall meeting, and you know that if you try talking to that weird dude from the John Birch society it's not gonna end well because he'll say something that gets you angry and you'll just shout at him, so...you just stick to the other end of the room.

But the difference here is that in real life you can see what Sid from accounting or that John Birch Society Dude look like so you can keep your distance, and the space is big enough for you to physically remove yourself. In here, it is not as easy. And so that is why people are asking for an easier way to do the exact thing that a) the mods are asking us to do, and b) we regularly do all the time in real life.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:37 PM on December 5, 2023 [8 favorites]

I wonder whether there is any demographic difference between the people who would support this feature and those who are against it.

Several supporters, including myself, appear to be women.
posted by NotLost at 4:49 PM on December 5, 2023 [12 favorites]

If someone annoys you, check them out. Seriously. If, as the old est maxim went, reality is a function of agreement -- then reading another person's comments and questions is where you see bit more of the human being and find more points on which to agree. More importantly, you see what they are going through in life. Which will temper the irritation on your end under your control. Such is my experience. The means to do so onsite and off are vast. All you need to do scroll down your phone right here to get started. I would rather things be more we are all in this together than it's windowless monads all the way down.
tldr: first do no harm.
posted by y2karl at 6:16 PM on December 5, 2023 [2 favorites]

Once a year, we should vote to evict the most annoying person on the site. We all know who I’m talking about, right?
posted by dianeF at 6:47 PM on December 5, 2023 [13 favorites]

I wonder how many people of colour, queer/trans people, and women we wouldn't have lost to the various exoduses (including myself) if there were muting/blocking options in place. It'd at least help us shield ourselves from the people that keep wanting to question our humanity.
posted by creatrixtiara at 7:55 PM on December 5, 2023 [14 favorites]

I wonder how many people of colour, queer/trans people, and women we wouldn't have lost to the various exoduses

Also possibly disabled people and those from other vulnerable groups.
posted by NotLost at 6:17 AM on December 6, 2023 [5 favorites]

TFW you stare into The Void, but the The Void is not that into you.
posted by snuffleupagus at 9:33 AM on December 6, 2023 [2 favorites]

If muting posts can't happen, could we at least have the username at the top of the post rather than the bottom?

That way it's much easier to skim or skip the ones you know might send you off the deep end.

I think there might be some Geek Social Fallicies going on in this thread.
posted by Zumbador at 7:17 PM on December 6, 2023 [8 favorites]

If muting posts can't happen, could we at least have the username at the top of the post rather than the bottom?

as an option one could set in their preferences, I don't see a problem with this. But if it were to become the overall default, I think I'd find it rather annoying. Because I enjoy engaging with ideas before personalities, I guess. Or as I put it earlier in the thread:

over time I've come to learn a lot from people who initially annoyed me. I'm glad, I couldn't just hide or mute or do anything except consciously not engage with them.
posted by philip-random at 8:05 PM on December 6, 2023 [2 favorites]

If muting posts can't happen, could we at least have the username at the top of the post rather than the bottom?

I see a difference between a function that blocks topics and one that blocks users. I also see a difference between a function I would not use and one that someone else might find helpful. The latter function also applies to the former. I view the use of a user's name at the top of a post in the same light. I prefer not to see who wrote a comment before I read it.

In my view, the value of a site such as this--one with clearly defined rules of etiquette--is the clash and contrast of opinions. I can't imagine contributing to a site whose members all were like me. I am often stimulated to contribute to a thread because my life experience somehow has resonated with either the topic itself or the ensuing discussions. I have usually composed comments that I realized were simple attempts to organize my thoughts about something, only to hit the delete button because, with the composition, my work was done.

I have also engaged in threads about topics outside of my experience--for example, in some threads regarding folks who identify as "marginalized" in one way or another. As a cis-white male, I have few illusions about who my peer groups are and are not. My only notion was to treat these threads cautiously and not argue about something I can't understand.

MetaFilter has taught me to tread lightly about some issues and avoid entirely the motherfuckery I've seen on other discussion sites. Some years ago, I had extremely disastrous reactions to certain months of the year. Some topics, even some words, could send me into an insomniac funk that might take me days or weeks to recover. I mention this only to indicate that I get it that people tread in places where demons lie hidden under many stones.

A secondary line of thought developed in this complicated thread concerns where such a device (as the blocking function) might lead the site. I'm sorry to see that the overall issue gets illustrated in some of the more acrimonious conversations that followed. Users such as myself have no trouble at all scrolling past topics or abandoning threads we find troublesome, for the same reasons we refrain from commenting on topics or threads we may find interesting.

The idea that another user may wish to gray out or block completely certain topics is one I can appreciate. But I have spent years deactivating most of my hot buttons, so I use my prerogative to scroll past or abandon those topics or threads.

MetaFilter has evolved in the ten years or so that I've been coming here. But I have found the analogy of the volunteer buffet too apt. Clearly, the results of additional tools such as the one posited will affect the community in ways we can't really foresee. Maybe we'll fragment like Reddit or Quora, into sub-communities, If so, I won't abandon the general population of the Blue, but I will spend a lot of time on the "Cat Pics Only" section.
posted by mule98J at 11:45 AM on December 11, 2023 [3 favorites]

A late addition to say that I considered buttoning yesterday because of utterly normative behavior & posts here that elevated my blood pressure. I don't normally think about leaving MetaFilter, and I didn't because I value MetaFilter, knew tomorrow (today) would be another day, etc., etc., but -- I would have had a better experience yesterday if I'd been able to hide some posts. Instead, I logged out for much of the day and instead browsed the comparatively kinder, calmer waters elsewhere, and instantly hid obnoxious shit and was able to engage more selectively, if I chose to at all.
posted by cupcakeninja at 4:37 AM on December 14, 2023 [9 favorites]

If muting posts can't happen, could we at least have the username at the top of the post rather than the bottom?
This would enable to roll my eyes before reading the comment rather than after.
posted by adamvasco at 8:23 AM on December 14, 2023 [2 favorites]

> If muting posts can't happen, could we at least have the username at the top of the post rather than the bottom?

This would enable to roll my eyes before reading the comment rather than after.

That....sounds like a problem Metafilter wouldn't be able to solve, if you are that hell-bent on continuing on to read a comment from someone when you already know you'd be rolling your eyes about it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:09 AM on December 14, 2023 [1 favorite]

I considered buttoning yesterday because of utterly normative behavior & posts here that elevated my blood pressure.

Someone else just told me the same thing over memail.
posted by aniola at 3:49 PM on December 14, 2023 [2 favorites]

If there is One, please make the Condor Knives 'God, I love her' guy ad go away from our phones forever now.
posted by y2karl at 3:41 AM on December 15, 2023

I don't know if this pony's already been stabled, but adding a +1 for being able to hide/mute FPPs would be awesome.
posted by smirkette at 4:44 PM on December 20, 2023 [1 favorite]

« Older mefi nonprofit - project update for November 19 | Local music library streaming thread Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments

MetaTalk

Hiding posts? November 22, 2023 10:47 AM Subscribe

Tags

Share