Think about it: you try reasoning with them, then get tired and block their noise from your feed, but all that does is reduces the presence of the ‘readonable minority’, allowing them to spew their rethoric to a more receptive audience. Socmed sucks.
You would think engagement would work better, and IRL it does. Online you’re just feeding the trolls.
deleted by creator
There’s no changing their minds anyway, they’ll just be less angry, so overall, it’s progress.
This is honestly the biggest reason. I’ve gotten in so many debates and arguments online and it only ends with me having wasted my time and being less happy. This is even the case when the person has seemed reasonable at first but it always devolves from there.
Blocking on Lemmy doesn’t prevent them from seeing your “reasonable” takes. It just hides that user’s messages from you. They wont even know you have blocked them.
It is good for my mental health
You deserve to be blocked you pro genocide troll
Oh it’s the pro troll again. Let’s goooooo! Biden says ‘you’re welcome!’
Ugh. This old argument again.
If you’ll remember, that’s how social media used to work. If you are old enough to remember OG Facebook, back when it required a
.eduemail address to sign up (and for a brief while after it was opened to the public), you only saw posts, and other people only saw your posts, if you both accepted friend requests. No randos were spewing nonsense in your feed; if Becky or Brandon started spewing conspiracy theories, you just un-friend them and they’re gone from your digital life.It was just a place for people you already know to connect online and maybe meet some friends-of-friends in the process. The feed (“wall” I think it was called?) was reverse chronological and nothing was boosted or demoted; likes only indicated you liked it.
That model seemed to work pretty damn well by not allowing toxic people, bad actors, conspiracy nuts (unless your friends were all conspiracy nuts), and dis-/misinformation to permeate every freaking interaction.
