The current blocking system is severely flawed. Blocking someone from seeing your posts is one thing, but blocking them from participating in public discussion is a completely different issue. When a user is barred from responding simply because they’ve been blocked, it creates an unfair system ripe for abuse. People don’t have to counter opposing arguments anymore; they can just silence them. That’s not debate, it’s censorship through convenience.
Think about it, if someone leaves a public review or comment, that becomes part of the open discussion space. Shouldn’t others have the right to challenge or respond? By preventing blocked users from engaging, you give individuals the power to shut down dissent simply because they don’t like hearing a different perspective. That weakens the entire community, because it rewards fragile egos over robust discussion.
A better balance would be this, blocked users shouldn’t be able to follow or see new personal posts from the person who blocked them, but they should still be able to access and respond to public reviews or threads. The original poster always retains the right to reply (or not), but at least the dialogue isn’t artificially cut off. That way, disagreements can play out in the open, where they belong instead of being stifled by one-sided control.
In short, disagreement isn’t harassment. Silencing people because you can’t handle being challenged doesn’t protect the community it undermines it.
And I’m looking at you, username: crimsonquill, too fragile to handle someone dismantling your bad takes on A Dream Within A Dream. Instead of engaging in open discussion, you chose the coward’s route, blocking dissent to silence any credible challenge to your blatantly dishonest review.
