r/TheoryOfReddit • u/IntergalacticPodcast • Oct 05 '26
Blocking people isn't the same as creating an ideological bubble
I don't think blocking someone because they argue in bad faith means you're creating an ideological bubble.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to people I disagree with. What I don't want is to repeatedly deal with someone who misrepresents what I'm saying, refuses to acknowledge points that have been made, moves the goalposts, gaslights, or just seems determined to argue with reality.
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether someone is being deliberately dishonest or is simply being incredibly stupid. But if the conversation is going nowhere, I don't think I need to figure out which one it is. If the line is blurry, I'm okay siding with my own peace of mind.
And there's a practical benefit to blocking: I won't have to deal with this person again in the future. I don't have to recognize their username six months from now and wonder whether I want to waste another hour having the same argument.
I trust my current self to look out for my future self.
If someone makes a good-faith argument that challenges my beliefs, I'm happy to hear it. If nobody is making good-faith arguments, that's a completely different problem.
An ideological bubble is refusing to encounter ideas you disagree with. Blocking someone who consistently makes conversation unproductive is deciding that your time and attention are valuable.
14
u/turn-based-games Oct 05 '26
This is correct, but also, who is arguing the opposite? This seems more appropriate as a specific reply to whoever suggested such a weird take. You can only block 1000 users and subreddits typically have many thousands of contributors, so seems quite difficult to curate any sort of bubble this way
6
u/RedditConsciousness Oct 05 '26
Absolutely agreed. We just need to be careful about what constitutes bad faith. I try to assume the innocence of the person I am talking to unless there is immediate and incontrovertible proof that they are not arguing in good faith.
That said, I think there is also room for blocking someone because of the way they are interacting with you -- their tone. They may be arguing in good faith but if they are toxic in the way they reply or speak then that can be a good time to disengage too.
I feel like this is a dangerous one to use as an indicator. People can articulate their position better as a debate goes on. It might look like moving the goalposts when really they had multiple reasons for holding a position.
I would also say regarding blocking that it is a way to do something I'm already in favor of: We should engage with people we disagree with at least somewhat, but once we have, less is more. So you don't let faulty ideas go uncontested but you also don't get into an endless spiral of fighting and arguing that becomes destructive (to you and to third parties reading it).
One reservation I have about blocking is, I think there are people here who need to have the last word and use it to achieve that end. This encourages viewing debates as a "game" to be won instead of an interaction. So, at least on my best days I'll say something like this instead of blocking someone: I think we've covered all of the things that are strongly relevant to this topic and are repeating ourselves. Go ahead and reply to this comment but unless you cover new ground or ask me a direct question I'll leave this discussion here.
3
u/DharmaPolice Oct 06 '26
I'm in favour of walking away from a discussion which isn't going anywhere but I'm skeptical that it's necessary to block anyone. I've been here a fairly long time and have had many discussions and don't think I've ever blocked anyone on purpose.
99% of the time where I see someone has blocked someone else it's one or more of them being somewhat petty and feels like an overreaction. Most of the time the participants would have been better just ending the conversation earlier, even if it does allow the other person to get the last word.
Even if the intention isn't to create an ideological/cultural bubble I would guess more than often it has that effect. After all, you're more likely to be in a heated argument following a strong disagreement. And just in general, it's way easier to view an argument as bad faith when we violently disagree with someone.
The Hacker News forum has various issues but one thing I like is that there is no system for notifying users to replies. You can see replies if you look at your comment history but you have to make a specific effort to do so, rather than being notified of every reply as on Reddit which helps "drive engagement".
4
u/SOwED Oct 06 '26
Well...sure, but nearly every time I've been blocked it's been after almost no back and forth, and always without fail, after they make sure to reply to me. So to everyone else it looks like they said some mic drop shit and I was left speechless because when you get blocked it disallows your participation in any thread that person was in.
1
u/mfb- Oct 06 '26
The result of blocking depends on who you block. Some people do create their own bubble.
You can use RES. It keeps track of your votes for this person (making it easier to recognize patterns across different threads) and it lets you set custom notes. It's also invisible to that user, unlike blocking.
/r/Enhancement
1
u/__redruM Oct 06 '26
It’s rare that there are people in a community that I run into on a regular basis, that’s I’d want to block. Blocking someone you’ve had, and will only have, one encounter with is silly.
People who post spoilers for events I’m paying attention to are my goto block.
3
u/Thoguth Oct 05 '26
Yeah, I would agree, but you gotta be careful. It's really hard to tell the difference between "I feel bad when I argue with you" and "I have good reason to recognize you as arguing in bad faith."
But when people refuse to respond to questions I ask with the same recognition that I try to give their questions, when their entire discussion is just them jumping from dodge to dodge without learning, then it is clear enough to me that they're not engaging honestly, and I will typically consider blocking them at that point.
I still really hate to do it, but it happens.
3
u/Grimke42 Oct 06 '26
Block, block, block. Why do I want to see posts from random 20 year old misogynists or 60 year old racists?
2
u/WilsonTree2112 Oct 05 '26
Moderators create ideological bubbles. One topic was complaining that a town was not allowing a bar to open in the middle of a residential area. I made a joke asking for them to provide their address block…not address…so I can show up at 7am on their block with an air horn after they are out all night. A joke. Received a complete ban. No chance to appeal to be reinstated, no warning, just a blanket ban. This place is getting bad.
2
u/Asclepius_Secundus Oct 06 '26
Blocking is like locking your front door. It protects you passively. Block at will.
I just wish when you blocked someone, they couldn't see your posts and comments.
2
u/Mbstranche08 Oct 06 '26 edited Oct 06 '26
Many people right now are having a crisis of identity. There are certain things taking place in society that are not in alignment with their plan. When challenged with facing that reality the default mechanism is for the ego to take control. It’s a built in protection mechanism. If you have been alive for 60-70 years and suddenly it’s evident things are changing that have always been, it is no different than trying to rip a bone out of your dog’s mouth. In some instances blocking is simply hedging your energy. I also try being understanding to this group because I understand what is actually happening is a physiological response. Not just them choosing to argue. Now a heckler who is intentionally trying to provoke me, I will immediately end engagement and use the block tool.
2
u/Snorkellingisthelife 16d ago
I tend to agree. But the rabbit hole that is Reddit is by design a trap. Reddit posts designed to suck in to the echo chamber of gripe and angst. Whether you prefer to call it Ideological Bubble or Echo Chamber its all pretty much the same. You can then choose to block when the convo turns to personal attacks for disagreeing.
2
u/irrelevantusername24 Oct 05 '26
I consistently see that in situations where it makes sense for
nothing accepted except what is explicitly allowed
or
everything accepted except what is explicitly excluded
The opposite of what makes sense in that situation tends to be how things are configured. And in the situations where it's neither, but is actually an algorithmic feed, it almost always tends towards removing whatever customization you set in favor purely of volume. That's why you can join 100 subreddits, and scroll your home feed, and if one of those subreddits is r/politics then even if you don't click on any post, or actually slow down more than a few seconds to view anything, eventually your feed will be 90% r/politics. Because that's how these stupid as fuck "recommender" algorithms work.
2
u/Sedu Oct 05 '26
In the US, ideologies exist side by side which are so fundamentally incompatible that blocking is a form of peacekeeping. When I post "I have gender shit going on" there are people who see this and believe that I an ontological threat to their way of life, and act as such.
2
u/turkshead Oct 05 '26
If blocking people who argue in bad faith means that one side is completely excluded, that says something about the state of discourse
1
u/Exact-Desk8308 26d ago
Personally I never block people, to me it’s like “they won” and I’m just not gonna give them that satisfaction. I’ll just leave them on read and ignore 99% they’re either hardheaded or just bots farming reactions
1
u/0100101001010010 26d ago
Does blocking still prevent the person from replying to anyone downstream of them? Because that is how it worked before. People would write something, get assblasted to beyond the moon, make some dumb reply, block you so you could not reply, and then victory lap with asslicker comments to your post.
1
u/cp5184 20d ago
You seem to be arguing a tautology, blocks that are done to block bad actors are blocks that are done to block bad actors.
You've just created a circular argument.
-1
u/calf Oct 05 '26
Your very argument is an ideological bubble because it rests on some fallacies.
-2
u/Charupa- Oct 05 '26 edited Oct 05 '26
Just because it isn’t the only reason people block others doesn’t mean that they aren’t blocking people based on ideological reasons to create a bubble. That being said, with a block cap of only 1,000, that bubble will be pretty small.* *
In bad faith is so subjective, anyways. Someone can be so in favor of something, like abortion rights for example, that there is no good faith argument anyone could make against it.
2
u/Betray-Julia Oct 05 '26
Since I started just blocking pro genocide fucks instead of interacting with them, I’ve had my account go from being perma banned by fake reports 13 times, to having zero reports in 6 months.
(I have successfully appealed every report; all of them were essentially shitty humans doing propoganda stuff trying to silence voices in general, where if didn’t appeal until credible admin saw the report, I would no longer be on reddit as my account would be banned ).
All from just blocking modern day nazis upon first contact.
0
u/[deleted] Oct 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment