Some wingnut I've never spoken to before (or again (foreshadowing!)) accused me of living in an "echo chamber" because I block people.
Fuck the "echo chamber" discourse. I reject it entirely.I am not here to wear an ascetic's hair shirt because you think that surrounding myself with dickheads builds character.
Block early and block often. I expanded on this in some detail in my "On Blocking" post from a few years back, but it bears repeating. Especially now.
This entry was edited (2 weeks ago)
bip
in reply to jwz • • •I think they're reacting to what happened on Reddit and Meta, where certain viewpoints were so widely censored that hugboxes were created.
No idea what the situation is on Twitter... I bugged out of there five years ago or so.
No Gods , no Masters! RESIST
in reply to jwz • • •They are not in my friends list, most seem to be rather new.
I don't bother arguing...
Spiritech
in reply to jwz • • •Joe
in reply to jwz • • •geek2112
in reply to jwz • • •prakashnarayanan
in reply to jwz • • •Goodbye Tinnitus - #1 Tinnitus-Ending Trick For The Holidays
https//shorturl.at/RYKBm
Jane Vogel
in reply to jwz • • •David Neto
in reply to jwz • • •And it's a very potent block: they completely disappear and are detached from all your posts.
Makes it so much nicer.
mempko
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to mempko • • •@mempko That's a high bar though. Most people would agree that that is an uncontroversial block. My bar is much lower.
My bar is down around: "Complete stranger on the bus with Opinions, you seem somewhat unpleasant. I can press this one weird button and never hear from you again."
To some people, I am that unpleasant stranger! They should absolutely block me. If they think we would not enjoy each other's online company, they are probably right.
millennial falcon
in reply to jwz • • •mempko
in reply to jwz • • •Terri K O 🍁
in reply to jwz • • •I really pissed off some dude once by saying, "it's not an echo chamber, it's called having friends. Maybe you should try that instead of whatever it is you're doing?"
Anyhow, blocking is great.
jwz reshared this.
Océane
in reply to Terri K O 🍁 • • •Océane
in reply to Océane • • •jwz
in reply to Océane • • •Ciggy Bringer of Smoke
in reply to jwz • • •Edward Jazzhands
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to Edward Jazzhands • • •@edward_jazzhands You and your crap opinions are not entitled to my attention. I do not owe it to you. This is not my job and you are not a paying customer.
As someone else in this thread said, "You call it an echo chamber, I call it having friends whose company I enjoy. Try it some time."
Edward Jazzhands
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to Edward Jazzhands • • •Angie
in reply to jwz • • •Lou Thomas
in reply to jwz • • •I block only when someone is persistently illogical or unnecessarily confrontational. But they can hold completely different views from my own, as long as they are willing to argue for them. In other words, the signal to noise ratio has to be good.
I don't know what your own criteria for blocking is, but if a given person decides to block simply because someone disagrees with them, then the danger of inhabiting an echo chamber is no longer a danger--it is absolutely assured.
So what's wrong with an echo chamber? Very pleasant to be surrounded by agreeable people, no? But then you will never convince anyone of anything, because they already believe exactly the same things that you do. And you will also never learn anything from those with whom you interact, nor will you have the opportunity to question or refine your own views by defending them against those who think differently.
Jef Poskanzer :batman:
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to Jef Poskanzer :batman: • • •Yvan
in reply to jwz • • •it's like the whole concept of "balance" in the media where some folks seem to think that if the BBC, say, is going to give airtime to the views of a respected scientist who has studied a topic for some decades then they're also bound by a duty to "balance" to give equal air-time & merit to some swivel-eyed loon with wild conjecture and conspiracy theories.
Having to swim in a lake of bullshit is not the opposite of being in an "echo chamber".
ajayspwmi
in reply to jwz • • •peterjfullagar 🏳️🌈
in reply to jwz • • •Masto.poetry
in reply to jwz • • •priyaanne
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to jwz • • •Will Deakin
in reply to jwz • • •Michael Kohne
in reply to jwz • • •Jason Scott
in reply to jwz • • •jwz reshared this.
Christof Damian 💙💛
in reply to jwz • • •I only feel centered if I block as many people as I follow.
Or many more.
C. R. Collins
in reply to jwz • • •Daric
in reply to jwz • • •Matthias Warkus
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to Matthias Warkus • • •@mawa
The other very important USENET rule that everyone now forgets: "If it's important, it will come back".
There is no chance that you will miss something important in The Discourse. None.
jwz reshared this.
ewhac
in reply to jwz • • •@mawa
> "If it's important, it will come back."
Unfortunately, that can also be said of the flat-earther whose previous ${MAXINT} accounts have been perma-banned.
sortius
in reply to jwz • • •right on brother.
Take pleasure in blocking shit cunts!
INTENTIONALLY blank
in reply to jwz • • •The block button is a great thing. None of us are obligated to waste precious mental bandwidth engaging with people we don't like that don't like us all that much, either.
To me, an "echo chamber" is more a matter of only reading or considering your own thoughts and opinions. You can read and consider a broad range of content without engaging everyone that passes by.
Not everyone is compatible. Also, it's the Internet, so it can be a nasty place. The block button is a friend to your sympathetic nervous system. 👍🏼
alcinnz
in reply to jwz • • •I find the people complaining about echo chambers tend to have the most milquetoast of opinions...
I'm not losing anything by blocking them!
jwz
in reply to jwz • • •What I used to think on a day when I got 112 new followers: "Neat!"
What I now think on a day when I get 112 new followers: "Oh no"
El Duvelle reshared this.
Will is too honest to be an MP
in reply to jwz • • •Just like I don't want their verbal diarrhoea around me in real life, I don't want it on my TL, so I'll happily block idiots.
jwz
in reply to jwz • • •Oblomov
in reply to jwz • • •AFAIK, yes. And that's for all lists, FWIW.
For the lists used to group users you follow there's a webapp that provides a better interface (<mastodonlistmanager.org/>), but AFAICS it doesn't handle the blocklist.
Mastodon List Manager
www.mastodonlistmanager.orgDJ Sundog - from the toot-lab
in reply to jwz • • •Chancerubbage
in reply to jwz • • •jwz
in reply to Chancerubbage • • •радарский
in reply to jwz • • •Sturgeon's Law
Poe's Law
Copyright Law
WeThePeopleRFucked
in reply to jwz • • •Wizard Bear (💉x8 + 😷)
in reply to jwz • • •Håkon Alstadheim 🇪🇺 🇳🇴🇺🇦
in reply to jwz • • •floydgump
in reply to jwz • • •Ari does not comply
in reply to jwz • • •Fi, infosec-aspected 🏳️⚧️
in reply to jwz • • •@corbden
Blocking is a withdrawal of consent to interact.
If someone has a problem with that, they need remediative instruction on how to interact with other people generally, as 'consent' is a necessary component for all interactions.
Corbin
in reply to Fi, infosec-aspected 🏳️⚧️ • • •Fi, infosec-aspected 🏳️⚧️
in reply to Corbin • • •@corbin @corbden
Are you being disingenuous or do you genuinely not comprehend the concept here?
If someone - who you have pejoratively labeled a chud - is harming me, they have already violated my consent in doing so.
If they are not harming me - and are not seeking to cause harm, and are not participating in my life at all - then why would I care about their existence?
I have agency over myself and my actions; the so-called 'chuds' do as well. So long as they are capable of not interfering in my agentic acts, there is no need for conflict -
so if they aren't showing up to scream in my mentions, I have no reason to block them.
This requires kindergarten-level proficiency in social modeling, which, granted, many conservatives are unable to demonstrate.
Corbin
in reply to Fi, infosec-aspected 🏳️⚧️ • • •@munin @corbden Second question first. Somebody might not harm you, and from your perspective might not appear to harm anybody else, but in fact might be doing measurable harms which have ethical consequences. This is a recurring theme both for marginalized communities of humans and for various communities of non-humans around the planet as well as the general environment.
First question second. As I said, your position is first-order. It's not wrong but is insufficient. For example, consider that I'm a pacifist, and hypothetically I see you in a one-on-one street fight with a fascist. My decision to help you is fundamentally second-order, because it can't be justified in terms of pacifism alone; it must also rest on the beliefs of you and your opponent, and which of those beliefs I want to see in the world.
I recommend an introduction to second-order ethics, Smilansky 2020, PDF
... Show more...@munin @corbden Second question first. Somebody might not harm you, and from your perspective might not appear to harm anybody else, but in fact might be doing measurable harms which have ethical consequences. This is a recurring theme both for marginalized communities of humans and for various communities of non-humans around the planet as well as the general environment.
First question second. As I said, your position is first-order. It's not wrong but is insufficient. For example, consider that I'm a pacifist, and hypothetically I see you in a one-on-one street fight with a fascist. My decision to help you is fundamentally second-order, because it can't be justified in terms of pacifism alone; it must also rest on the beliefs of you and your opponent, and which of those beliefs I want to see in the world.
I recommend an introduction to second-order ethics, Smilansky 2020, PDF here: gwern.net/doc/philosophy/ethic… It explores second-order justifications for moving beyond basic liberalism.
On a personal note, no, I don't understand. I used to hold your position until I was maybe 13 or 14, and then I realized that liberal society fundamentally doesn't have a way to deal with bullies and became disenchanted with anything less than genuine socialism and solidarity. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk to each other.
Fi, infosec-aspected 🏳️⚧️
in reply to Corbin • • •@corbin @corbden
Speaking as a member of a marginalized community, I am fully aware of how systemic harm works, thank you.
I would like to know what your goal is in talking down to me as tho I am not aware of this dynamic.
The response you've given appears to me to be from a perspective that you consider me to have insufficient knowledge, expertise, and sophistication to understand your concepts.
Further, you have gone well outside the scope of the conversation, which is about blocking on social media. I have not consented to a discussion of dynamics outside of that specific scope, and your expansion into random hypotheticals is unwelcome.
I would invite you to reread my prior response with the perspective that I do, in fact, have that understanding and have accounted for it in my model, and that if there is something about my model you do not understand you can ask me about it.
Alternatively, you can fuck right off.
jwz
in reply to Fi, infosec-aspected 🏳️⚧️ • • •It is absolutely, utterly exhausting that every discussion of blocking on social media devolves into "BUT WHAT ABOUT RIGOROUS DEBATE IN THE MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS" when what we're actually talking about here is "SIR THIS IS A WENDY'S".