FaceDeer

It being broken over there doesn't make it not broken over here.

It being different over here is what makes it not broken over here. The effects that makes Reddit's block system suck so badly are not present here.

When did an appreciation for free speech become the exclusive domain of the Libertarians? I don't want you to be able to unilaterally silence me, therefore I'm a Libertarian?

What are your opinions on community bans, since all your arguments apply equally to those. Let me see you rectify those positions.

Community bans are the domain of a select few individuals who are responsible for maintaining the overall state of the community. If they abuse their power then the community suffers and people should go elsewhere.

Personally, I'd rather a system where one could "subscribe" to specific moderators so that if one goes rogue people could choose to unsubscribe from their moderation actions, that would IMO be the best combination of freedom and control. But I can understand that being rather complicated to implement well and perhaps a little confusing for the users, so I'm okay with the current setup as a compromise.

A restraining order is something a judge grants. That'd be a moderator or administrator in the context of the Threadiverse, and they do have the ability to prevent people from posting. Bringing something to their attention is what the "report" link is for, it's their decision after that.

I remain firm in my opinion that giving everybody the ability to unilaterally apply restraining orders to everybody they want to for whatever reason they want to leads to bad outcomes. That's how Reddit does it and it's pretty badly broken over there.

In that case substitute "they" for "you" in my comment. The meaning remains the same, as does my position.

If you block someone you will never see their harassment.

My main experience with blocking is when people use it to "get the last word" in an argument. They'll write up a response - often containing questions and challenges to my position - and then immediately block me after posting it so that it will look like I gave up in the face of their arguments.

I usually just edit my previous comment with whatever responses seem necessary, playing an Uno Reverse on them since they'll be the ones who never see it.

It's still rather annoying, though, because if other people also respond Reddit's brain-dead implementation prevents me from responding to other people who have responded to someone who blocked me.

I am glad that the Fediverse has a much more sane approach to blocking that doesn't let it be weaponized like that.

The engagement between the two of you is over. He's saying stuff to other people now, not to you.

I don't want to let them continue to engage with me and other people in my comments, but just lose my ability to see what they're saying about me.

You want to control what they see and do? No, you don't get to decide that for other people.

If you don't want to lose your ability to see what they're saying then don't block them.

Maybe you don't need a block function to accomplish that, then. Seems you could accomplish it by just not caring about what the user says.

Engagement is a two-way street. By blocking them you have stopped engaging with them.

The fact that you're upset by what other people are doing somewhere that you can't see and that doesn't affect you seems like a you problem, frankly. Just forget about them.

How is it not fair? You get to decide what you can see and say. You don't get to decide what I can see and say.

They couldn't have put Trump in power without the help of the American electorate.

I think they misinterpreted a call to "round people up" as "bringing people together."