[di_ry]

yup, that's wrong on so many levels.

1 it's just asking for abusing a block option.

2 Imagine someone putting up a tweet supporting nazis or something and blocking everyone who doesn't agree, now it looks like majority supports that kind of stuff.

[jonathankoren]

Or to turn it around: Imagine putting up a tweet supporting the victims of the synagogue shooting, and not being able to block a bunch of nazis that showed up to harass you. That might sound bad, but who knows? Maybe someone will make an argument for genocide that will really reasonate with you.

Seriously, blocks / killfiles has been a tool to prevent harassment for decades across the Internet. It’s a tool of user empowerment.

[camdenlock]

Indeed. I think people tend to misconstrue blocking for some form of censorship, when in reality it's just an individual exercising one's right to curate one's own social circles.

[Grue3]

Killfile is a great tool because it only affects yourself. Everybody should use killfiles and implement them in their services. What you're arguing for is that people's blocks should affect not just themselves, but make things a blocked user say invisible for everyone. Which seems like an obviously bad idea.

[sheepmullet]

If you don’t want to start a public conversation that might include viewpoints you don’t agree with then go onto a platform like Facebook that allows you to carefully curate your image and social circles.