> Hearing opinions that you don't agree with is a necessary result of free speech. And as an organisation (or algorithm), being an arbiter of the rules is unfa

> Hearing opinions that you don't agree with is a necessary result of free speech. And as an organisation (or algorithm), being an arbiter of the rules is unfathomably hard. When is something disagreeable, and when does it encite violence? But, at an individual level, it should be easy for you to control the type of content you see. As an example, if I'd reported one of Elon Musk's Tweets, Twitter could ask me why, and then help me identify and sever the connection that led to me being shown it in the first place. I'm sorry to say, but the "if you don't like that post, I can make it invisible to you (but not to others)" approach to content moderation is utter bullshit. It encourages filter bubbles by expecting you to tune out content you don't agree with; It normalizes a situation in which everyone sees a slightly different version of the same conversation. But most importantly, there are a number of situations where you have legitimate reasons to hide content from others. An example is cyberbullying: The essence of cyberbullying is that others talk about you behind your back. Hiding that content from yourself is completely useless. You likely weren't the address in the first place and it won't stop the harmful effects, which are the real-world actions of those who have talked about you. In such a case, nothing short of actual moderation helps.