Link to the Wiki article, because this is likely the first thing the public in general will read when searching for the Heckeler's Veto.
Note that everything below is speculation and opinion.
The heckeler's veto should not be considered protected speech on Poal. No user should be allowed to abuse their speech on Poal in order to drown out or push out other users. Nor should moderators be allowed to use a heckeler's reaction or "possible reaction" to a post as a valid excuse to delete posts and comments on a subpoal (referring to the legal definition of heckeler's veto here).
These are the two most observable ways of executing the heckeler's veto here on Poal. But I think there is a third way that is still observable, but doesn't get the same attention. Voting. The way these news aggregator sites are designed allows for users to actively suppress posts and comments in a quick and easy way. This system is antithetical to websites that value free speech and disenting opinions.
So what can we do about this? Or should we do anything about this?
I think we should, and I've thought of a way that would at least reduce the power of the downvote as a tool for heckelers. We can change the way Poal positions posts from the net value of upvotes and downvotes, to total votes. Changing this will allow people to quickly voice their opinion on a particular post without suppressing the post. With this system, suppressing user's posts becomes a passive action instead of an active one, because to keep a post from being visible, you mush choose to not interact with it. And I think that is a much better system that encourages people to ignore what they don't like instead of taking action against it.
As an extension on that sentiment, the number of comments made on a post could also be taken into consideration for a post's position on Poal's/a subpoal's front page. Adjustments will need to be made over time to prevent abuse, but this can be a way to encourage discussion and mature behavior towards heckelers (just ignoring them).
@PM_ME_YOUR_BOOBS2, @AOU, despite your's and the communities best attempts to create a website culture that resists the use of the downvote as a disagree/fuck you button, as Poal grows, it will be used as such. People are primed to do that out of instinct or social conditioning, or whatever. Its an easy way to express yourself. My suggestion is a way Poal can encourage more mature behavior towards unlikeable and unpopular speech, and it can be a way for Poal to distinguish itself from other aggregator websites.
These suggestions would be major feature changes, though. A lot of time and work to implement well.
So before saying yes or no, we as a community should try to answer a question. What do we see Poal being or what roll do we see it fullfilling/becoming in the future? Is Poal a content aggregator, or a discussion forum? An echo chamber, or a bubble breaker? We need to know this first, otherwise any feature changes may become a waste of time if the direction we want Poal to go in runs contrary to any implemented features. Once we have a direction, we can build tools and a culture that will move towards that end. We, the users, have a roll in this decision, but @AOU and @PM_ME_YOUR_BOOBS2 are the ones that make the final call on what Poal will be. Just let us know when you do so us users can know where we stand.
End of my drivel. Thanks for tolerating it :)
[Link to the Wiki article,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto) because this is likely the first thing the public in general will read when searching for the Heckeler's Veto.
*Note that everything below is speculation and opinion.*
The heckeler's veto should not be considered protected speech on Poal. No user should be allowed to abuse their speech on Poal in order to drown out or push out other users. Nor should moderators be allowed to use a heckeler's reaction or "possible reaction" to a post as a valid excuse to delete posts and comments on a subpoal (referring to the legal definition of heckeler's veto here).
These are the two most observable ways of executing the heckeler's veto here on Poal. But I think there is a third way that is still observable, but doesn't get the same attention. Voting. The way these news aggregator sites are designed allows for users to *actively* suppress posts and comments in a quick and easy way. This system is antithetical to websites that value free speech and disenting opinions.
So what can we do about this? Or should we do anything about this?
I think we should, and I've thought of a way that would at least reduce the power of the downvote as a tool for heckelers. We can change the way Poal positions posts from the net value of upvotes and downvotes, to total votes. Changing this will allow people to quickly voice their opinion on a particular post without suppressing the post. With this system, suppressing user's posts becomes a passive action instead of an active one, because to keep a post from being visible, you mush choose to not interact with it. And I think that is a much better system that encourages people to ignore what they don't like instead of taking action against it.
As an extension on that sentiment, the number of comments made on a post could also be taken into consideration for a post's position on Poal's/a subpoal's front page. Adjustments will need to be made over time to prevent abuse, but this can be a way to encourage discussion and mature behavior towards heckelers (just ignoring them).
@PM_ME_YOUR_BOOBS2, @AOU, despite your's and the communities best attempts to create a website culture that resists the use of the downvote as a disagree/fuck you button, as Poal grows, it will be used as such. People are primed to do that out of instinct or social conditioning, or whatever. Its an easy way to express yourself. My suggestion is a way Poal can encourage more mature behavior towards unlikeable and unpopular speech, and it can be a way for Poal to distinguish itself from other aggregator websites.
These suggestions would be major feature changes, though. A lot of time and work to implement well.
So before saying yes or no, we as a community should try to answer a question. What do we see Poal being or what roll do we see it fullfilling/becoming in the future? Is Poal a content aggregator, or a discussion forum? An echo chamber, or a bubble breaker? We need to know this first, otherwise any feature changes may become a waste of time if the direction we want Poal to go in runs contrary to any implemented features. Once we have a direction, we can build tools and a culture that will move towards that end. We, the users, have a roll in this decision, but @AOU and @PM_ME_YOUR_BOOBS2 are the ones that make the final call on what Poal will be. Just let us know when you do so us users can know where we stand.
End of my drivel. Thanks for tolerating it :)
I gotta say you made a lot of great points that Poal needs to consider.