I have long limited who I block on any type of service I have considered a part of the public dialogue. This is any site with a community uses the site this way, to discuss issues of public interest, which is essentially all issues, including artificial ones.
I don't mean to imply that there is any particular cohesion here between members of this "community", but this is instead a community based on interaction. Cohesion if it were to be calculated is based on continued interaction, not agreement, for example. So think of the term loosely when I use it. A "community" is any group of people with interactive relationships connecting them, even incidental ones like sharing the same site but not talking with each other directly...
This public dialog community is the subset of people wherever on the net one might be engaged in such discussion, in this case youtube. Such a medium acts as a part of the public dialogue, and all such venues together are the public dialogue in general, and of course includes spaces off the internet, in the traditional homes of public dialogue, cocktail parties, cafes, newspapers and prisons.
These rules are strict in terms of what I use to justify blocking, and liberal in terms of what this allows other users such as commenters. For me blocking, or similar actions on other sites, has long been restricted to criteria such as, people making violent threats (rare), doc dropping (never happened in my threads as far as I remember), harrassing other users with racist or sexist slurs, or obvious unrepentant bigotry, or obvious harrassment (rare if warned). I also block any user that sends me a "how to promote your channel" PM, with prejudice.
This policy is from a belief that the public dialogue works best with the widest possible participation. I believe that still. There are also other things that help the public dialogue work better, such as people's privacy and even anonymity being respected within reason. If someone says "I'm going to blow up something" or even "I'm going to kill myself" then people have a right to react in a way that will involve those people's personal lives. In the first case because it is criminal and intolerable, it is not protected as dialogue, and in the second case if one interpreted the display as a cry for help. On the other hand, in the latter case, if a person were to say "I am terminally ill, and I believe that I can decide to euthenize myself. I am of sound mind. I want people to realize this should be legal as a personal choice."... then I think it would be inappropriate to contact the police or local medical services to descend on the man, which is because I believe in the right to suicide, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't intervene in someone merely hysterical, a temporary danger to themselves, acting out in public.
If that was too confusing... my point is that after the type of criminal activity all people object to, you immediately reach a grey area, and then, you are out of the gray quickly into the light, where everything left "goes". However, this does not mean every participant needs to maintain relationships they don't want to have. I have never believed that. For example, if someone wanted to debate knitting patterns, and thought that cursing was inappropriate, they are entirely within their rights to block people for violating that in their comments or video replies.
The reason my blocking policy is so open is because I pride myself on being able to take just about anything, and I think I can but there are always costs. Ultimately, personally, I can merely ignore comments I don't care to answer... and to scan them less often, and thus still sometimes answer at a frequency I don't find annoying. On the other hand, it's hard to ignore forever interactions with others, and the similarities in those patterns, and form an over all opinion.
Still, my attitude has always been everyone is pretty much on their own in that regard, that is not a "protection" I would ever give, and I still wouldn't think of it as protection, that's impossible online really. But I would rather think of it as managing links in a network. I like to maintain a lot of links, especially with people that differ with me.
This is why it is harder for me to block Qntkka than it is to block carmel, because Qntkka at least explains himself, confers and differs, where carmel has hardly every made any point at all. Commenter Adam O'shea requested this analytic explanation, though the real reason I did it is that I have a great many clear ideas on this subject.
Not only have I written them down, but I have been doing so for decades now, surprisingly enough. My first contact with online community was text based forums on BBSs from the mid-80s until now. In fact, I ran and wrote software for one. If you don't know what a BBS, you can find out typing BBS into, well, anywhere because it all goes to google as far as I know anyway.
The decision was difficult, and in fact it was difficult in a way out of proportion to the decision in one way. The only reason it requires justification from me is because it is a bit of a change in the standard I have been using. I am going to add a field to my criteria in one case, and in the other, actually, it falls under an old rule.
The old rule is related to doc dropping. Doc dropping is a modern term, and it's not separate from exploiting docs. If someone publishes their address and phone number, it's not ethical to use it to harrass them. The dropping is only a problem because of the actual abuse of people that use it... it is so common that people that share docs can be expected to know that, and are doing it maliciously, knowing the plentiful supply of exploiters will likely bring forth such abuses.
Now, USING docs doesn't often happen in a comment thread of a video or blog, because that requires contacting the addresses or phone numbers in the docs, correct, you follow me? So we talk about "doc dropping", it's a term that formed like a snowflake from the snow storm on Snow Mountain. The real issue is "fucking with private life" and perhaps you should understand that the reason we have "handles" is to take a character, perhaps for some anonymity in order to express your REAL opinions... perhaps you have critical words for your industry. People need protection to be in the conversation.
But it is not saying it is one's obligation to be hidden. It is the obligation of people not to abuse this. The lesson eventually will be learned, there is no other way. You can easily calculate what will happen as access to each other's information increases... and in that scenario as yourself if it's sufficent to require people to hide their information, or if it will have to be improper, one way or another, for people to abuse such information, including people that want to share philosophy, art, or opinion with one another.
So that's the old reason. Very old. Doc dropping is something the young kids say, this is reaching beyond the conversation. The only reason it wasn't immediate is I wanted to ask Qntkka to explain, which he kindly has, and to assess if he thought of it as a mistake, if he agreed with the ethos that I have that makes this clearly beyond the pale, and he it seems to me he does not, or at least he is not inclined to claim he is. As he admitted there was blowback more on him, perhaps he would not do it again for that reason, but that's not really the part I'm interested in. I'm interested in his position, because I find that anathema to the public dialogue as I have come to understand it's vital needs for almost 30 years.
Vital needs as I see them of course. But remember, I have done this and analyzed the "meta" of it the entire time. Even if wrong my opinions are not uninformed, it would have to be my inclination lead me to wrong opinion. But I doubt it. The reason I can doubt it is that I believe there is room for different views, I want people that disagree with me, even on this. But I don't want them in my conversation circle, but I like to hear from people that might not want their physical locality, etc, revealed, and I respect that. I think it provides and outlet for sometimes important information, and even if it's not important, but it's someone doing a performance of a strange or embarrassing nature because that's their sort of creativity, then the Public Dialogue should support that.
The internet is not only for Public Dialogue, mind you, but that's why I am on Youtube. If you detrimend that than that's not ok, it's uncool to even pretend to fuck with someone's livelihood in this world... not cool to me. But it's not like I'm saying Qntkka should be kicked from a site like Youtube, actually not. I don't even say that about fringeelements. There is room for that, but I don't want to condone it. He evidently understands that and has made a video I have not seen yet, by the way, that he informed me of.
The new rule is carmel... passive aggressive is the sort of thing I just call out. Backing off of implications and even statements, again, just call that out. I argue back, I just declare what I see. The new rule is that, after a few years... when it gets fairly bad, and generally in proportion to how much it affects other people's conversations... I know it's not going to be good.
I get angry as the problems persist, either/and/or with others. I continue to declare and generally the bluntness has an effect. But it's actually better, and more sensitive just to say "I reject this connect." Rather than hope they leave with a self-fulfilling will.
The rational reason is that I see the exact same pattern between me and many other people who I respect the character of. I see nothing productive from the interaction, I see her as a detriment of that sharing of information. It is a judgement call but well informed, years worth, and I think she acts to the detriment of Public Dialogue as I understand it... she is not sharing much information, and she harrasses a variety of view, of diverse views, it seems the only thing they have in common is that they're either sharing information, or they have objected to her instant-psychoanalysis, followed by a denial that she every does that but gosh you are doing it to her.
If you do not see it this way I am glad. That means everyone won't block her. I think it's better if everyone has people accepting their relationship, incidental or more than that... and groups they are in. I will still see activity, probably, but if I comment I'll have to unblock, so there is a hurdle... is that worth it?!? depends, probably not, but if so I would. Mind you, technically it's not required, I just would. It's pretty much that I don't want to deal with her in comments.
Is this a new wave of blocking and purging for pyrrho? I doubt it, I agonize over it so far so am I likely? Nah.
On the other hand, in my experience, when a web site admin or channel owner or blogger has this sort of realization, they do go on a purge! so who knows? exciting!
I probably wouldn't trust me unless I did trust me, which I of course would as I would have demonstrated my reliability to myself by then. But then again I'm kind of cynical sometimes so... hard to say.
But I'd worry I might have made a mistake if I did trust me, but I probably wouldn't have... then again, it might be logical to ask for more clarification if I needed it.
After all, yes, yes yes, this criteria does apply in the future, if it comes up... so far once in 6 years. I will now make a judgement call on what is detrimental to the diverse conversation as I see it. Diversity is not just the number of participants, it's their differences, and their ability to maintain those differences and still be in contact, and that, requires tolerance and bluntness... the tolerance begins at one's personal life, and the bluntness is exactly here and public... if there is any impact of the discussion, history will sort out that this person was so and so and worked here, and was this or that way in their different domains, online here and there, and "in real life". We just need to encourage the inner stuff that might be hidden, has room to come out where we can fucking deal with it finally and for once other than in the intellectual bohemian underground.
PLEASE! What??!? you disagree. Ok. I respect that. Literally and minimally. Maybe somehow our ships will meed again. What? you? your say you agree, but what? the effect of you is the op po site. You say it's not? But... I have done the calculations thrice a year for thice a year... and I assure you, by my calculation... what I value of this process you deter? Surely you... agree? We should part ways?
If you are worried about how I might judge, well, you can't go wrong being civil, you can't go wrong acknowledging if someone has a problem with you and altering your interaction with them until it's not too bad, or else making clear why that's not acceptable, and if you don't want to be particularly civil you should probably not use racist or bigoted terms, or really any attempts to shame people, and if you dish something acceptable out of class A... like snide innuendo... it's a good idea to admit to what you were getting at after, and it's good to appreciate when other aficionado's of snide innuendo come up with about you and to not be indignant... cause of hypocrite!
And I don't just mean snide innuendo, I mean ANYTHING objectionable... anything not objectionable, you dish it, you take, otherwise, problem.
Qntkka ejected on a technicality, perhaps to be addressed in a conversation... not yet blocked to allow that.
Carmel ejected with prejudice. Since she claims to be a nurse, and why would she lie? Why?! because being a nurse is glamorous, and if not that it's sort of exciting like an ambulance driver. That's why she might lie!
See what I did there? If she is one, that's a compliment, if she's not one, it's an insult. Now I watch how she responds and see if she's lying.
You are being watched when you talk. EOM
