Block limit deboost

[NickJamesBTC]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
support town square discussion for large groups, eliminate echo chamber mentality or algorithmic gamification

A clear and concise description of what the problem is.
Users blocking 10,000+ people works to eliminate the possibility of diverse and broad discussion for all

Describe the solution you'd like
Tiny de-boost in engagement based on # of people blocked. E.g. 100 blocks == 0.001% Downboost/degradation of algo enhancement/10,000 blocked users == 1%. Numbers can be configured to scale more correctly, should be almost immeasurable or unnoticeable for average user and deter people from blocking anybody and everybody that says something they disagree with.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Limit the number of blocks a user is allowed to 10,000 per account or year as this is quite unreasonable

Additional context
Naval or Cernovich social media accounts are great examples of echo chambers built to produce a dopamine feedback loop rather then encourage honest and wide discussion
Am open to hearing good reasons to have 10,000 users blocked that can’t be solved via other solutions (e.g. crypto bot armies can be solved through other means should not be on user to self resolve).
There is also a mute tool people could be utilizing.

[Gallium3D]

cap

[NickJamesBTC]

What does it mean??

[DavidBuchanan314]

There are more than 10,000 idiots on twitter, it's important to be able to block them.

[bruce-macdonald]

I don't think this will fly under the flag of Elon's free speech absolutism. People can use their freedom to not hear/see voices they know do not contribute to the discussion.

[darkdevildeath]

I really appreciate your goals. But I believe that the Twitter does not have an adequate structure to form sophisticated debates.
The character limit makes this a suitable system for you to say what you think without going too deep and without diving into a debate about your opinions.
Traditional systems that promote debates often support extensive discussions, such as GitHub and Facebook. While an emerging debate structure feels more like Discord to me, where people come together in voice channels and talk in real time.

[YellowAfterlife]

If you've made it to a block list or two, you should probably be rather concerned about #1386, but overall block lists can work faster than moderation for a group of users.

For example, my list of blocked users has several hundred entries that I personally added there because I somehow ended up on someone's dataset for a botnet - so every day for a year or so I would get 1-2 notifications that someone tagged me under a "doing an airdrop, retweet and tag 3 friends" tweet. Each time a new account, different names, different registration dates (perhaps bought en masse) - the only tell is that tweet formatting is similar and I would see handles from the same set next to mine. Having just scrolled through the page, most of these never got banned because they don't look like obvious bots - maybe it's just a guy that's only here for free stuff, how do you tell

And as for debate, even if you were discouraged from blocking too many people, you could still hide any replies disagreeing with your POV (or use the "who can reply" setting), which is exactly what a whole lot of people are doing already.

[seifAlbaghdady]

If you have blocked over 10,000 people, and you consider all of them to be idiots, then the problem may lie with you

[aloiscochard]

I understand the motivation of the OP, that being said I think this is not really related to software engineering as @seifAlbaghdady said.

It might be better to look for someone knowledgeable on the subject, there is some very interesting book about how not to hate everyone and stuff like that...

Anyway, here the idea is to discuss concrete reasonable actions that can be implemented.

As far as I'm concerned, trying to block the entire planet is not going to create the echo chamber you are looking for (nothing new under the sun by the way).