Why I Block

What I am looking for in social media and blogging is good discussion. The dynamics of interaction are different for the two media. I’m discussing social media, in particular Bluesky, in this post.

I block there freely and sometimes with fanfare, usually without explanation. This post explains so that I can link to it as seems necessary.

There are a number of basic reasons to block: trolling, insults, additions to draw attention to an unrelated cause, mansplaining, and so on.

I block for other reasons that disrupt a discussion as well. I can’t give an exhaustive list of descriptions, just some indications.

Doomerism in its many guises, along with “we all knew that.” We’re in a very bad situation right now in the US, and I want to contribute to finding ways forward. That’s my choice. If yours is to give up now, I don’t want to hear from you.

Getting facts wrong, particularly if resistant to correction. I blocked one guy (yes, guys outnumber women in my block list) this morning who had no idea of the overwhelming government role in basic research nor of the history and economics of industrial research. And he stuck with it.

Clownish or inscrutable responses. Sarcasm is extremely difficult to do without the aid of voice tone, facial expressions, and gestures. I’ve tried to give up using it online without adding /s. And some comments just don’t make sense. Sometimes it seems to be autocorrect, sometimes maybe not. Please proofread before clicking “Publish.”

Academic objections. Two hundred characters is not sufficient for references! If something is generally being discussed or easy to find on Wikipedia, I probably won’t give a link. I search on terms I don’t understand; so can you! If I think something is not generally available, I’ll append it. Or you could ask nicely. Asking nicely goes a longer way than attacking. There’s also an excessively literal response. I like to use words in creative ways, but I’ve mostly given up on that on Bluesky because of the literalists.

I operate at different levels of irritability. If you hit me on a bad day, you’re more likely to get summarily blocked. If the commenter seems to be of good faith, I may engage or ignore the comment. My rule of thumb is three rounds of back and forth. I’m also trying to remember to use the limiting function on who can respond to a post if I feel strongly about it.

Seems to me that these are all rules for the kind of conversations one might want to have face to face. Common courtesy goes a long way, along with remembering that there is no obligation to comment.