First, I don't think you speak for "People," just the kind of people who are just like you. For example, I have never used the expression "crybullies," and if

First, I don't think you speak for "People," just the kind of people who are just like you. For example, I have never used the expression "crybullies," and if I did, it would probably be to describe the kind of white male who gets on a place like HN and cries that his freedom to be a raging asshole in somebody else's privately owned medium is being trampled by moderation. But back to your point, I will argue with it in good faith. You say: > There's always "Block" button, and then, there's always "delete account" button. This sounds (superficially) fair. If I insult Milo, he can ignore me, block me, or insult me back, and I can do the same to him. If either of us rage-quits Twitter, well, sucks-to-be-us. Well here's the thing. What is it doesn't work like that in practice? What if the "block" button is not an effective mechanism for using Twitter positively? What if Milo blocks me, but thousands of my followers insult Milo, overwhelming his ability to block them all? It's more than just his feelings, if his entire experience is flooded with my army of trolls, he simply can't keep up with the tools in place. And the kicker is this: People know this, so they "game the system" by flooding your mentions with so many new and different accounts that you simply can't block them all. Overwhelmed by a DDOS, you delete your account. IF there were effective tools for ignoring insults and floods, I would agree with you that you have options, and if you delete your account that is entirely your personal choice. But in the current design, Twitter provides a grossly imbalanced power dynamic between those who wish to abuse other users, and those who wish to use the system without abusing other users. Where does this imbalance lead us? To social network where only trolls remain standing. That is not in Twitter's best interests, nor does it have long-term survivability even if they thought it was. This dynamic has been repeated many, many times, and so far it has always worked out the exact same way; When the trolls arrive, you either moderate actively, or your social network dies. Now, you say: > if you can't handle insults, it is not anyone's job to prevent them Actually, when you run a social network, it is your job to decide how it is to be used. We're on a moderated platform right now, and it is someone's job to prevent certain types of speech from taking place. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with whether any one person or group of people can handle insults or not. Hacker News simply does not wish to cultivate an insult-heavy tone, period. So it has guidelines, and it enforces the guidelines, and people like you and I decide that the benefits of a moderated conversation outweigh the freedom to unleash our raging id. Should Twitter be less like voat and more like facebook? That is a question of opinion. But it is not necessarily true that it's not anybody's job to police the the of a social network, and it is certainly not even remotely true that there is always the block button, because the consequence of Twitter's current design choices creates an asymmetry between abusers and the abused.