Thank you Lucky. I hope others find this helpful like I do.

*quality tweak

Awarding lucky760 with one star point for this contribution to VideoSift - declared quality by eric3579.

You know when you have a bruise or a sore tooth and you can't stop yourself from touching it? Ouch ouch ouch, and yet you keep touching it.

This is a grand solution to short circuit our human foible of torturing ourselves with completely avoidable pain.

Thank you.

Ignore sore teeth long enough and there won't be any teeth left.

True, but not applicable here. In this context that kind of equates to:

"Never have sex and you'll get pregnant anyway."


To mix metaphors even further, my point is: there *is* no spoon.

I'm going to stick with the teeth metaphor and say that maybe the dentist should have performed some extractions when he saw rotting teeth. Or maybe enacted some dental cleaning regimen. Then patients wouldn't have to be given some morphine button to press to ignore the pain they can't manage to ignore.

Metaphor aside, this was a feature I asked for a long time ago too, but looking back on it I realize I was wrong. You can't just ignore problems.

Problem is were all people here,Speechless.One mans comedy is another's trigger. Unless it becomes cancerous for everyone its better to let people ignore systematically, effectually banning personally. I do think its a little much to remove them from the thread entirely, like Facebook does, because it will potentially fracture conversations. At least show that x ignored user posted, if not the content.

This could totally be done per user settings too.

I came back when I saw @speechless's comment. She is exactly right. Ignore does not work. It is a poor substitute for moderation.

Ignoring only works if everyone does it...and possibly not even then. It only takes one person to take the bait to make a troll thrive. If everyone actually did ignore, then it's no different from booting the troublemaker so quit beating around the bush and just boot the troublemaker. One method shifts the burden on the community members who many have given up after seeing how ineffectual ignore is and left, the other method shifts the burden where it should be, on those who run the site.

This site has been going downhill for a long while now because problem members have not been kicked out. It has been noted that the #1 video now only requires 40-ish upvotes where in years past it needed over double that.

I think I even recall @lucky760 voicing his concerns about the continued existence of this site in Sift Talk a while back.

All it takes is a short glance at comment histories to see who is here to contribute to the community and who is here only to incite and rile up and do not contribute to civilized discourse. Most people who read this will know who I am referring to. Dissenting opinions are still required to back their points up. Simply dissent by itself doesn't make the viewpoint valid or else you've just lowered yourself to the level of youtube comments, at a minimum, ad hom attacks and the bigger more well known logical fallacies should not be tolerated.

A good community requires moderation. All the strong forum communities out there depend on moderation to lay down the law on a regular basis...not just when one feels like showing up on the site once every month or so.

Odd, because it did work for me, as I can't even see @speechless's comments due to one particularly nasty, insulting conversation we had one day that ended in my ignoring him/her. Now there's no way to un-do that if I wished to, without having lucky do it for me.
Agreed though, stricter enforcement of the 'rules' would have made my requesting this feature (yes, I requested this...go ahead and blame the Newt) moot. The people that constantly made the site a place I wasn't sure I wanted to visit, IMO, violated the rules repeatedly...but my opinion is only, like, my opinion man, and if the moderators don't think they've crossed the line, this feature was the only way I would be able to continue here...since I was unable to ignore a few members (now I'm not talking about speechless) because their inflammatory hate speech was so often quoted and commented about, so I would click 'see it anyway' out of curiosity, and often ended up replying.
Now that I don't see them at all, I feel much better about being here. It does mean that I no longer contradict their insanity publicly (or at all), so they get to spout their hateful ideas with less opposition, but there came a time when enough was enough and I realized that I was only giving them the attention they were seeking just by replying, and certainly not making a dent in their ignorance or hatred, and it wasn't doing me any good either.
Since they know how far they can skirt the rules while still being as annoying as possible, this was the best option I could think of....and I'm quite grateful to Lucky for implementing it for me (and others).
I think it sucks ass that most of the dissenting (right wing) voices here have become so angry and hateful that they aren't worth listening to anymore, and seem to only post here to get a rise out of others, not to inform or discuss. I wish that was not the case, but since it is, for me it was either stop reading them altogether (requiring this addition to 'ignore'), or just leave like so many others have. I was not ready to abandon the sift and let them 'win', so this seemed the best alternative.

It would be nice if you could see who you are ignoring on your profile page somewhere, and had the ability to choose to un-ignore on a person by person basis by one's self. Who knows, it's possible that some of them might go to the lounge (where ignored users can still be seen), indicate they had changed, and make me interested in reading their comments again. As it stands, I would have to go to @lucky760 for that 'un-ignore'...it would be better, I think, if we could do it ourselves without bothering him, but I don't know how possible or reasonable that really is.

^ this is fucking hilarious to me and proves how stupid this new iteration of the ignore feature is, as some people are so retarded they can't help but to reply or talk about people even if they can't see their comments. Apparently the mere mention of my name in a thread is a "trigger".

Don't worry about it. Everything is fine. Just keep circle jerking yourselves down the drain. What's left? 20 people? What a damn shame.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

I know I don't participate much in this community but this is a stupid feature. I ignored a person ONCE in my entire time here. But then as the years went on and I gained some maturity (some) I learned to not be affected by the opinions of others so much. In fact, I prefer to see the opposing view point more than those that agree.

I think it's selfish and entitled to want to ignore and by extension, BLOT someone out of your community. If you don't want to be part of a community of freethinkers, don't bother looking at the comments.

This seems like a soft ban to me -- even if it is only for the person that is ignoring another person, it's banning their input from your screen.

If there's real life harm, death threats, or stalking akin to spam, I can understand -- but that should be something escalated to a community leader, as it should not be something that regularly occurs.

Too late for my input? lol

It's a valid point, but obviously completely objective and does not validly apply to everyone.

Whilst some people enjoy navigating VideoSift with fiery debate or insulting discourse, for others VideoSift is an escape and a place to mellow out by watching videos and chatting with online friends/acquaintances.

There have been many such people in the past who were great participating members just couldn't stand feeling miserable every time they came here, so they stopped coming.

Instead of weeding out members who want to avoid being provoked while chilling out here and focusing on preserving only members who enjoy or can tolerate aggressive, abrasive, and/or insulting comment-based attacks, the ability to completely ignore someone is a very acceptable compromise.

In real life if someone in your workplace or school or wherever was constantly getting in your face spouting off arguments or attacks and you kept turning around to get away, it would be absurd for your teacher or boss to demand that you listen to what they attacker had to say.

Likewise, it'd be absurd for us here to force members to teach themselves to be unaffected by everyone else, especially considering some people by design are simply incapable of that. It's not selfish and entitled for someone to want to avoid being stressed out and anxious after a hard, stressful day at work when they just want to kick back and mellow on some sift.

So you know, I'm at least one of the people who asked @lucky760 to implement this. I found myself completely incapable of ignoring some people when their comments were still there to see because others would quote them. (many times just insulting rants about me, but just as often something else insane that I couldn't stop myself from replying to...even though I didn't want to). It did end up making it unpleasant to visit the sift at all, unless I completely ignored the comments, and that's kind of missing the point of the sift for me.
There are only a small few that I have ignored, I think 2 of them at their own request. At least for those 2, it's a benefit rather than a negative, no longer having to have discussions with me...and it's OK for me...I'm not here to try to make anyone uncomfortable.
With those I do want to avoid, it's a godsend for me. If that feature had been in effect last year, I would not have felt the need to push (along with others) to get Chingalera removed (he was already on double secret probation for multiple violations, but still steadfastly refused to follow sift rules, and insisted on drunkenly and angrily 'stalking' people all over the sift, even after he was ignored).
Just my 2 cents, I hope it enlightens you to why some people found this necessary.

What do people say about you that is so bad it requires the implementation of a new level of censorship at the Sift?

Why does that matter?

Plain and simple, if people feel like shit by reading someone's comments, they shouldn't have to.

If their only options are 1) stop coming to VideoSift, 2) teach an old dog new tricks (i.e., force them to teach their psychology to cope with the perceived abuse), or 3) continue coming to VideoSift but ensuring they aren't made to feel like shit, I don't understand your perspective is that option 2 is the only choice and that every dissenting opinion *must* be heard by *everyone* who comes across it otherwise... what, their civil rights are being violated or something? I don't see the offense.

Why should anyone care that newtboy is avoiding reading their comments with a little assistance from the site? From the commenter's perspective, how is that any different than newtboy just not reading their comments [unassisted]?

There are no Clockwork Orange eye-clamps here, and it's not censorship for a person to practice their right to ignore content they want not to experience.

(Btw, I hope this isn't coming across as an attack. I honestly just don't understand the point of view you're representing.)

First, it's not censorship in any way shape or form. Not reading someone's post is simply not what the word 'censorship' means.

Second, it's actually not what people said about me that got my goat (mostly...Chingalera did make numerous personal attacks though), it was what I saw as repeated intentional provocation, racist, misogynist, and other hateful postings that, while they were designed to not cross the line and get the people banned, were certainly not what I come to the sift to read. When those posts were unavoidable because of others replying/quoting, even though the posters were ignored, it made the sift a place where reading the comments section was becoming intolerable. Now I don't have that problem.
(there are also a couple of people I ignore because they asked me to, not because they were nasty. I do wish I had the option to select who's totally ignored, or at least a way to un-ignore those on that list, but no solution is perfect, and this one was the best I could think of that was possible.

Once more I'll thank @lucky760 for his work helping me with this, it kept me from leaving the sift...I'll leave that for you to decide if that's a good or a bad thing.

My question for you, why does my not reading a few sifter's posts make you think someone has been censored anywhere besides my screen?

@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.

There is absolutely no suppression.
It's not analogous to 'banning books', it's more like not checking out and reading certain books, or certain authors. No author has the right to force their 'work' on others. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
You simply don't have a right to 'be acknowledged'. That is not a right. EDIT: Freedom of speech is not the freedom to force others to listen.
You absolutely SHOULD be able to remove someone from your personal existence. As you said, there are even laws to do it in real life, which actually effects the actions of the other party, unlike this, which is more like blocking their phone number and emails at best. Do you think it should not be possible to block phone calls and emails?
How do you find that offensive? Why do you feel that a person's right to force their views on another person outweighs that other person's right to NOT have a person's views forced on them?
Again, NO ONE IS SILENCED. How do you not get that? To censor, you must hide the work from OTHERS, not simply not look at it.
I clearly explained the reasons I asked for it, you just don't get it for some reason.
The behavior you described is exactly what was happening, but was done in such a way that the moderators said it didn't rise to the level of banning or even hobbling them (although I still can't understand how, since at least one of them was repeatedly using the N word, others using the C word to describe any woman, others making nasty personal insults, etc.) Since ban and hobble weren't happening (now ban, THAT's censorship...but for cause), something else was needed, this was it.

Censorship doesn't exist on a privately-run site.