I Have a Suggestion for Similar Worlds

A thought about blocking. Why, when X blocks Y, does it automatically follow not only that Y is invisible to X, but also that X is invisible to Y (ie, in effect, Y has blocked X, through no choice of his own)?

X achieves his (or her) objective in blocking Y when he can no longer see anything Y writes, and when Y has no means of contacting him. But would there be any harm in Y still being able to read what X posts?

I found myself thinking about this yesterday when I discovered I had been blocked by someone I had previously regarded as a friendly acquaintance. Of course that’s his prerogative. But I was reading a lengthy exchange involving two long-standing friends of mine when I realised that something was missing. A post from a fourth member mentioned the author of the missing comments by name, and so I was able to discover that he had blocked me. But my enjoyment of the whole conversation was impaired by the fact that I was unable to read parts of it, through no choice of the other participants. I’m not sure what this achieved, unless it was to punish me for some (unknown) misdemeanour!

I would be interested to know what other people think.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

SW-User

I'm not entirely sure, really. It's hard to imagine every possibility. I think it's stupid I can't see comments I made to someone because X blocked me. I can't imagine a system where that works and creates any healthy contribution. That literally takes away my ability to possibly see constructively what I said they may have offended someone, or if they are just block happy.

I do worry about vigilantism on here. One in theory can block a person and then say whatever they want about them. Letting you see what they say would help stop that.

MartinII · 70-79, M

@SW-User Yes, I hadn’t thought of that - a good point.

SW-User

When you think about it, if what you suggest was put into place, most people here would probably get very wound up when they responded to the person who blocked them, and the blocker remained silent. The blockee wouldn't know they had been blocked, be even more confused, and get angry, leading to more alternate accounts in order to message the blocker, going against TOS. I understand what you're saying but I think it's better the way it is, as frustrating as it may be.

View 15 more replies »

SW-User

@SW-User Ah! I gotcha. Yes, that's always been the way here. What I love is when someone gets angry with you, replies, then blocks you! You get the notice they responded but you can't see the response and given the opportunity to say anything. I call it CSS...Childish Snowflake Syndrome. 😄😋

Meh, again, it's just not worth wasting my time on. I always look at it as, it's their problem, I'm not making it into mine. 😉

RubySoo · 56-60, F

@SW-User
Initially i thought hed just misunderstood what id said....so i tried to explain i didnt say everything in public but it wasnt to hide anything....i just didnt think the world needed to know...but he chose to continue publically and blocked me.

he clearly unblocked me just to lecture me....

MartinII · 70-79, M

@SW-User Thank you!

SW-User

🤔 I get your point but I suppose it depends on why X blocked Y. If X blocked Y because whenever X comments on a post suddenly Y is there creating an argument. Then it makes sense that Y can't see what X is posting as that is the point of the block.

Therefore it follows that maybe SW should consider two types of block.

Block 1 (Current solution) I want to not see Y and don't want Y seeing my posts either.
Block 2 - I only don't want to see what Y is posting by Y can see my posts.

Although isn't Block 2 what Mute does? Although I think mute only stops them appearing in your feed - i.e you don't see their posts or questions but I'm assuming you can go see them if you look for them

MartinII · 70-79, M

@SW-User Yes, your two variants would certainly help to meet my point. I checked Mute and it doesn’t go as far as your Block 2. Indeed while researching this I discovered that there is one member whose posts I see quite frequently whom I “muted” many months ago - for reasons I have forgotten!

SW-User

@MartinII Does it ignore the personal mute if you are in the group? I don't know how that works but as I say I think all it stops is their posts appearing in your main feed.

I mute often - I have personal gripe against some of the fetish folk on here but I just don't want to read it so if I see too much from them that I don't like I just mute them.

ArtieKat · M

I agree completely. Martin. I've had the same happen. It is also misleading when the comment from the person who has blocked you is tagged "this post has been deleted" - no it hasn't: it's still there for the other participants to see. I think there's an element of paranoia in the people who block (X) without serious provocation - my guess is that they know they were in the wrong but do not want Y to have possible confirmation of this.

Am I making myself clear - thoughts are a bit jumbled?

MartinII · 70-79, M

@ArtieKat Yes, completely clear and I agree. In the particular case which prompted my post, I haven’t the foggiest idea why I was blocked.

ArtieKat · M

@MartinII The better solution would be to make replies visible but self-started threads and PMs invisible.

rjc36 · 61-69, M

I can understand that but I believe that if someone blocks someone it is so they do not see the blocker's posts at all. I have read people's questions and found responses missing as well and have no clue why I was blocked. I can understand why people block stalkers and the method SW uses can work pretty well for that as long as the stalker doesn't have mutipul accounts.

InOtterWords · F

Blocking means both your content is invisible to the other

DDonde · 31-35, M

I block sometimes because I don't want some people viewing my stuff.

Add a comment...