Everywhere else, red means stop and green means go. Here, the creator has chosen to reverse that to emphasize that they consider blocking to be good and allowing people to connect to be bad.
No attention is needed for the instances that are marked with red. They are federating.
Actually, red doesn’t always mean stop and green go. It sounds like a good argument on paper but you’re making a generalization to bolster you’re point. No wonder you don’t see the hypocrisy in the color decision not going “your way”. Proof of that is your last line, basically saying “nothing needs to be done if you share MY opinion”. Two-way street, my friend.
I mean, I fully agree the site owner is showing their preference, it’s their site and we should know by now that there’s no such thing as a totally unbiased anything. This is life, we adjust and adapt. To be upset about the colors, however, strikes me as a weird hill to die on.
The point is that it’s portraying not blocking as an inherently negative thing, which isn’t universally agreed upon at all. Plenty of people would say that they don’t need any attention at all. It’s not presenting objective in a neutral way, but rather labeling a group as bad.
Of course, it’s probably fair to assume that the author has no intention of being neutral, but it’s still valid grounds to criticize it as a data visualization.
Thanks for the clarification, your second to last line says it all. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that many online lack critical thinking skills and/or don’t consider the source when browsing. Better to accommodate the lowest common denominator when possible…but to expect that from a biased, private site is asking a lot IMHO.
Apparently this is a divisive topic, moreso than expected. Edited for clarity.
Huh? Green means it has been blocked and needs no further action. Red means it needs attention [if you’re on the side of defederating that is].
Everywhere else, red means stop and green means go. Here, the creator has chosen to reverse that to emphasize that they consider blocking to be good and allowing people to connect to be bad.
No attention is needed for the instances that are marked with red. They are federating.
Actually, red doesn’t always mean stop and green go. It sounds like a good argument on paper but you’re making a generalization to bolster you’re point. No wonder you don’t see the hypocrisy in the color decision not going “your way”. Proof of that is your last line, basically saying “nothing needs to be done if you share MY opinion”. Two-way street, my friend.
I mean, I fully agree the site owner is showing their preference, it’s their site and we should know by now that there’s no such thing as a totally unbiased anything. This is life, we adjust and adapt. To be upset about the colors, however, strikes me as a weird hill to die on.
Removed by mod
The point is that it’s portraying not blocking as an inherently negative thing, which isn’t universally agreed upon at all. Plenty of people would say that they don’t need any attention at all. It’s not presenting objective in a neutral way, but rather labeling a group as bad.
Of course, it’s probably fair to assume that the author has no intention of being neutral, but it’s still valid grounds to criticize it as a data visualization.
I don’t think I’d expect political neutrality from the admin of a website literally called “veganism” anyway.
You shouldn’t expect it from ANY site really.
Thanks for the clarification, your second to last line says it all. Sometimes it’s easy to forget that many online lack critical thinking skills and/or don’t consider the source when browsing. Better to accommodate the lowest common denominator when possible…but to expect that from a biased, private site is asking a lot IMHO.