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.

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.