This is always going to be the argument against anything like this, and of course it should be used with caution. Then again, my life is too short to be dealing with (say) bots, literal nazis etc. While their opinions may be interesting occasionally, it's not always worth the energy expended on some people.

> the antithesis of dialogue

Yes, perhaps

> , freedom of speech,

No absolutely not. Not in any interpretation of "freedom of speech" is individuals choosing not to listen to other indivuduals the antithesis of freedom of speech.

>> , freedom of speech,

> No absolutely not. Not in any interpretation of "freedom of speech" is individuals choosing not to listen to other indivuduals the antithesis of freedom of speech.

How long do you think it will take for shared block lists to appear or for people to block people of other parties (e.g. Republicans blocking Democrats and vice-versa)? A bubble then or an algorithm has effectively banned a set of people from reaching another set of people. I agree in the U.S. legal sense, the liberty of freedom of speech is not applicable, as it is a negative right, a liberty that is, that is to not be infringed solely by the government. Twitter or people are not involved parties.

However: a) It is against the whole goal of free speech for me to decide that e.g. a friend of mine or a stranger should not listen to this "noise." (It could be in fact noise, the quotes are here as it is regardless a subjective claim.)

b) And a level further, using this tool, we are banning someone that might have partially agreed with some disliked news or statement but never heard their position. The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow dialogue. Our future selves never have the chance to write to the people we just blocked. (Or hear them.) Your past self just self censored your future self.

Not everyone uses social media to watch anonymous users screeching their opinions at each other. It is a nice tool to cut down on encountering content you don't necessarily care for.

Loud Twitter voices are hardly "neighbors".

What if you find that your lawn is on fire because there is a burning cross on it and your neighbor standing next to it in a hood and robe?

You might think I'm being alarmist, but for a lot of people that use these tools this is what they are blocking from their timeline - hatred, anger, and vitriol to the very fibre of their being and existence.

What to you is a dialogue, and democratic expression of freedom of speech, is to another person a threat on their very life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Not every position is worth engaging in "dialogue" about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

P.S. We're not talking about "harassment" here by the way - not the way you think it is - where you could report someone to Twitter, or any authorities. We're talking about politicians, celebrities, and news media with an audience who can abstractly debate someone's right to existence or happiness without overtly attacking any one specific person.

> What if you find that your lawn is on fire because there is a burning cross on it and your neighbor standing next to it in a hood and robe?

Jokingly: Then I would want to know that to get them to fix the rest of my lawn. (Seriously: I would definitely prefer to know who might want to stab me in the back or face: keep your enemies close. I prefer life that ignorance; keeps you alive longer.)

I 10^10% agree with you about the paradox of tolerance; my 2c is that mass banning ends up causing more damage. Please read below.

> What to you is a dialogue, and democratic expression of freedom of speech, is to another person a threat on their very life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately, history has shown that not listening to dissenting opinions damages a society by forcing the dissenters to clique together leading to more extreme views and peer pressuring rational out of the window. Essentially, if you want to stay apart of the community and you want as they are the only that listened you on A, you have to agree on B and C. That is what keeps e.g. flat earthers or e.g. political extremist movements alive and growing. You just force them underground and trying harder and in violent ways to be heard.

Showing that you are ignoring some opinion can be more powerful tool, as you are broadcasting a message. (Of course you could try to de-escalate actively, but that is a whole science and needs energy.)

To sum up, the biggest disservice to yourself only is simply escalating on the anger that is now hidden away from you.

#harassment: I understand that is why I added the per case clause.

P.S. We are a large world and by the pigeonhole principle we are going to disagree on some stuff. Also we have a pretty pretty bleak historical record, that makes twitter trolling and bullying sound like paradise.

In a world awash with information and everyone optimizing to keep you and me engaged, aggressive defense of time and attention becomes a necessity to maintain sanity. No one deserves to gain your attention by default. If a tweet has > 50% chance to enrage me, I'd rather not see it. Important news and information will find a way to reach me.