The Ethics of Two Way Ignore

[FrogReaver]

Why is a little much, but I don't see an issue with knowing just the fact that someone blocked you.

Practically speaking it would likely lead to more harassment.

I’d be down with a count of how many blocks I have against me though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is the question though. There seems to be an assumption that the person blocked is a harasser (a bad actor, in other words), even though there are other reasons why a person might be blocked. That assumption of malice makes it not about the person doing the blocking, but about the character of the person being blocked.

 

[Morrus]

That is the question though. There seems to be an assumption that the person blocked is a harasser (a bad actor, in other words), even though there are other reasons why a person might be blocked. That assumption of malice makes it not about the person doing the blocking, but about the character of the person being blocked.

In an individual case, sure. When it ends up being a case of "it's not me it's everybody else" that's a harder argument to make.

 

[FrogReaver]

In an individual case, sure. When it ends up being a case of "it's not me it's everybody else" that's a harder argument to make.

If it really was everybody else or most everyone else I would agree.

I dunno that it is though. Far fewer peeps have me blocked than don’t have me blocked. If it was really me wouldn’t almost everyone block me?

*pretty sure this applies to everyone.

 

[J.Quondam]

That is the question though. There seems to be an assumption that the person blocked is a harasser (a bad actor, in other words), even though there are other reasons why a person might be blocked. That assumption of malice makes it not about the person doing the blocking, but about the character of the person being blocked.

No, there is no built-in assumption of anything. A blocker just blocks whomever that blocker wants for whatever reason that blocker decides. It's literally no one else's business. There's no broad assumption of malice, because for the most part* no one aside from the blocker and maybe the blockee even knows it's happening.

Malice only becomes a concern if there are reports of bad behavior. But that's a different function, its button is called "Report". The blocks in and of themselves aren't part of that.




* Yes, someone could suss out these things due to imperfect technical implementations, if they really want. But doing so takes some effort and noseyness... at which point it might start veering into actual harassment. If caught, that's when the "malice" concern probably legitimately kicks in, as it should.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is the question though. There seems to be an assumption that the person blocked is a harasser (a bad actor, in other words), even though there are other reasons why a person might be blocked. That assumption of malice makes it not about the person doing the blocking, but about the character of the person being blocked.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I've got about five people blocking me; sometimes I remember why, sometimes I don't, sometimes I'm a little sorry they felt the need, sometimes I figure "no big loss".

But I don't think its unreasonable for Morrus or the mods to figure when someone has had it done in the mid to high two digits, and that the same people the complain about it happening, they perhaps are getting what they asked for (especially since I doubt this happens very often without a fair number of reports about that person being made, and again, not like I've never had any red text directed at me).

 

[Morrus]

I dunno that it is though. Far fewer peeps have me blocked than don’t have me blocked.

Well, obviously. Over 7 billion people haven't blocked you. That's not really the argument you think it is.

If substantially more than average numbers of people block you, the odds are it's you, not them.

 

[Umbran]

I dunno that it is though. Far fewer peeps have me blocked than don’t have me blocked. If it was really me wouldn’t almost everyone block me?

Activation energy is a thing.

There is a basic maxim of public relations - the actions you see (complaints, reports, yelp reviews, etc) are a generally only a fraction of the folks who had the same basic notion, but took a passive route to deal with it.

And, all things are relative. If one person is blocked by a hundred, when most folks of similar activity level are not blocked at all, then the assessment that the blocked person is more offending than most has some merit.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, obviously. Over 7 billion people haven't blocked you. That's not really the argument you think it is.

I wasn’t talking about 7 billion people I’ve never had any interactions with, I was talking about the users of this site.

If substantially more than average numbers of people block you, the odds are it's you, not them.

Okay, let me try to approach it this way. Why do you believe that’s true?

I believe most blocks occur because two people start butting heads and escalate it from there. The one that gets tired of it first blocks the other.

The scenario that everyone is being nice and friendly and some jerk starts being rude and nasty while everyone else remains nice and friendly is an extreme rarity in my experiences.

 

[Morrus]

Okay, let me try to approach it this way. Why do you believe that’s true?

I believe it to be obvious and self-evident, but I don't really have the bandwidth to get into a debate about it. Sorry.