Ask Lemmy

People don't like being forced to engage with belligerent reactionaries.

If someone isn't convinced by a reasonable explanation, they aren't worth engaging with.

You find this out pretty quick when trying to interact in good faith on the internet.

I think it's more of a space curation thing. As a tumblr user mentioned, "I pressed a button to get rid of an annoying guy and I would do it again".

It depends what you're on (social media) for.

If you're there to get some positive social interaction and read some articles or funny pictures, it completely makes sense to block agitators or regular shitposters.

If you're there to have political arguments and engage with rage bait then you leave everyone unblocked.

Its really not that complicated.

I constantly block both users and communities on Lemmy. Mostly because they are spouting doomer nonsense, and I ain't got no time for their bullshit.

Views, positions have gotten more extreme and cemented at that. Probably due to algorithms of "traditional" social media, that focus on them to raise clicks. (This trend to extreme positions and freaking out on the slightest trigger is also noticeable in real life behaviour, imho.) I sometimes block folks because I know there will not be a frank exchange of views but pure hate, extremism.

Plus spammers.

last I checked I had over 220 users blocked. now it's probably 250.

I block people who are willfully ignorant or trolls.

I think there is a difference between different people - and maybe it has changed generationally too. I can think of some obvious potential reasons though:

1. the number of people who are being horrible is increasing. The increasing division in society is reflected online. That means people have more reason to block people.
2. the proliferation of social media bubbles makes people less used to encountering opinions that differ significantly from their own.

I usually find myself blocked by people who just disagree with me. I (increasingly) rarely lose my rag online, but people find it annoying to have someone reply to them who disagrees on certain things and who doesn't just shut up and go away quickly.

I have a pretty high tolerance for that kind of irritation but after a few dozen replies back and forth I'll also use the block button. It's less about not seeing their posts in the future, more as a way to force myself to disengage and get annoyed again.

It's been common advice for a while now to block people you are about to tantrum at. I do like that it's finally catching on.

You say "civil disagreements" but from what I've seen blocking mostly happens when they sidestep the issue with a personal attack or ad hominid response.

Also I've seen some blocking just on people being associated with known bad actors like hatemongers or somebody's stalker

Personally, I block people who espouse things I believe are genuinely spiteful, hateful, or shitty. Generally, I use the block button to "curate" my experience with the intention that I can use Lemmy as brief escapism when I'm in the bathroom or on the train without having my mood affected by somebody posting something shitty.

I don't block anyone for normal disagreements, because I'm a relatively normal adult and as such that sort of thing doesn't bother me.

I don't think I ever blocked anyone on reddit, but I've been pretty block happy on lemmy. Mostly because it's a smaller community. With reddit, it was easy enough to unsubscribe from the big popular communities and focus on my niche interests and rigorously modded communities like askHistorians. That way I mostly saw stuff that was genuinely interesting to me. And if someone was annoying, they were just one voice among thousands.

Here on lemmy, there's not enough activity to be overly selective, and I actually enjoy the casual vibe of asklemmy, showerthoughts and nostupidquestions. While I'd never visit their reddit counterparts, here the community is small and it feels more personal. But this also means that there's the occasional poster who I'd rather just not have to see. So, to keep my time on lemmy enjoyable, I block them.

I don't really think it's a big deal, I don't even think it's a criticism of those posters. It's really just that the content of their posts / comments are something that doesn't add value to my experience. I've blocked well-intentioned, but obviously teenage, users because I'm not interested in their personal life questions (but they're entitled to ask!); I blocked someone just for posting too many moth memes when I was getting sick of that fad.

I'm pretty sure I've never blocked anyone for disagreeing with me or my beliefs, but if someone seems like their trolling, or simply has such poor social communication skills that they are coming across that way, I'll block them. I generally look at users history and check if I'm likely to miss anything in the future. But invariably, the type of user I consider blocking generally has a bunch of dumb, negative or uninteresting comments and posts.

I've been online since BBS days. Never blocked anyone. Never could understand why people do that. Just ignore them, whatever.

So many people, later on down the road have something to say worthwhile that I wouldn't have known if I just blocked them. Gotta give some leeway on the internet, no one really knows tone or intent most of the time.

I think it's related to echo chamber behaviour. A way to filter out any dissenting voice because any one that disagrees is as annoying a spammer and as hurtful as a bully.

And at the same time is not that different from walking away from any rando from the street that most probably I won't see ever again. Lol.

I don't know, I personally don't block people, instead I use lots of tags to remember past interactions.

I have done this a few times, for me it was just that I was writing a reply and 80% through I realized that I didn't want to argue any more, so I blocked the guy after posting it, just so I wouldn't get any more crap to deal with.

I don't tend to block unless there was clear malice or it is being done in bad faith. Prime examples of this would be accounts that when I look at their history is almost exclusively argumentative posts(this is generally prompted by another reason), people who do personal attacks instead of standard discussion, and people whom it's clear that they aren't trying to add to the conversation, and are trying to derail or push an agenda.

It's baffling how quick people are to do it. A while ago, I sold an old electronic thing on Marketplace to someone. A day later, they sent me an angry message saying that it didn't work and how I scammed them, then proceeded to block me. I would've liked the opportunity to troubleshoot with them or even refund the item if it turned out to actually be broken, but... blocking me precludes all that. What exactly did they hope to achieve?

I haven't blocked anyone on this account, but it's new.

On my last one, I think I blocked three users. I believe all were basically trying to flood a community so that it was unreadable (one, IIRC, was just posting the same large Simpsons or Futurama image repeatedly throughout a thread to try to stop people from talking).

I've not blocked anyone here or on Reddit. I have on Mastodon but only becase the 3 people I have blocked are fucking interminably boring not because of any philsophival difference of opinion or they were rude or some shit.

I tend not to engage too much, it is some random on the internet after all. I am old, I've been doing this shit from IRL meetups of computer clubs, to BBS's where I actually personally knew just about everyone from meet ups, then Usenet and IRC opened the world, then fora, then reddit (because Usenet died) now here and Mastodon..

I dunno I haven’t blocked anyone and I don’t know if anyone has blocked me.

Im very pro block. I prefer that users can do stuff themselves over moderation honestly. I would like blocking to be reciprical and I have to do a lot of it for communities because the language thing often either seems to not work or my suspicion is the person making the community did not set it. That being said I block few users but tons of communities. The fediverse is not really large enough to subscribe to some stuff and ignore the rest. I block anything I have no interest in or sometimes just because its to niche for me. Things like sports, memes, and communities about like one specific thing like a tv series or video game.

Follow-up to this question after seeing many responses (and thank you): What is your default mode for self-doubt when engaging in discussions?

That is, no matter how confident you may be in something, do you maintain an open door, or are your beliefs you block over completely set in stone?

For me, little terrifies me more than becoming the thing I hate; to be clouded by my own cognitive bias; to inadvertently throw myself into an echo-chamber of self-validation. As such I try my best to always maintain at least the slightest bit of doubt in even my strongest beliefs, and to that end to at least let dialogue challenging that come through.

Because you can go through your whole life with zero negative social corrections. It's a low trust, collapse of society thing