[tptacek]

What makes you think it's productive to enable coerced 1:1 political conversations between strangers? That's what it means to lobby against blocklists.

On the contrary, I think there should be far more blocklists.

Opponents of blocklists get themselves wound up over the potential productive conversations that might occur were it not for the overzealous filtering of the lists. But I don't see any positive value in that potential. The overwhelming majority of potential 1:1 political debates never occur, and nobody cares. Why should I then be concerned over potential Twitter debates, which are adversely selected for toxicity?

People who are passionate about the evils of blocklists also have a hard time not coming across like the sea lion from the cartoon.