Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

860

This is the end of discourse on Poal.

I could let it slide on individual subs, but this is too far; ideas gone unmolested is the promotion of cancer... I suppose that I will have to find a new home.

EDIT: I propose the following solution.

Instead of outright blocking individual users, their replies and conversations are INSTEAD automatically collapsed so that their speech is not infringed upon by allowing the choice to see it, and that those blocking them don't have to see it if they choose not to.

See for petition to change it.

This is the end of discourse on Poal. I could let it slide on individual subs, but this is too far; ideas gone unmolested is the promotion of cancer... I suppose that I will have to find a new home. EDIT: I propose the following solution. >Instead of outright blocking individual users, their replies and conversations are INSTEAD automatically collapsed so that their speech is not infringed upon by allowing the *choice* to see it, and that those blocking them don't have to see it if they *choose* not to. See [HERE](https://poal.co/s/IdeasForPoal/291456) for petition to change it.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (78).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Why would you want to talk with someone who can't stand you?

[–] • 3 pts

You're not. They are responding to your posts. That's not talking to them. If you don't want to hear what someone specific has to say in response to your post, block that user. But why should you get to decide what everyone else gets to read in response to your post? Why should you get to decide whose allowed to talk to whom about shit you post?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The idea is to block trolls and spammers from annoying you. If you are normal and somebody blocks you, it's their problem, not yours.

[–] • 2 pts

By blocking a person from replying your posts, you aren't preventing a user from annoying you. You're preventing that user from annoying everyone else. However, the unintended consequence of that action is that grifters who are using this platform to promote a grift have a safe space to promote that grift by blocking those who call them out on that grift.

Crensh, for example, blocked me because I suggested that this Q bullshit was nothing but a grift, used to sell Q shit, and questioned his motives by referencing the years of claims, made by Q, that never materialized or were never shown to be true.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Because those people attack my truth the most.

How do you intend to know if what you believe is true if you live in an echo chamber; how do you think that Twitter got the way that it did?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I think you can make your own thread with a link to the post blocked to you and prove them wrong.

[–] • 1 pt

Why should I have to? Why should anyone have the ability to prevent their ideas from going directly unchallenged?

Your argument is contrary to the very reason that the "Fuck You!" option exists on polls, yet it is vigorously defended.