And I do see where you’re coming from, Paul and think your point about the need to deal with the abuse of the “reporting” tool is a good one. My one difference with you is that I think the purposes someone might want to accomplish by blocking a user (controlling your own feed, sheltering yourself from dealing with harassment by idiots and also preventing these idiots from having the opportunity to see your content and, thus, report it because it offends their delicate sensibilities) can be attained without needing to have the “block” make the blocked user’s responses to your articles disappear from other people’s feeds when they view your article. As I’ve said before, I’m totally fine with the “block” making (i) the blocked user disappear entirely from your experience of Medium, so that you don’t have to deal with them; and (ii) you disappearing entirely from the blocked user’s experience of Medium, so that they can’t see or respond directly to any further articles of yours, and thus, can’t report those articles either. The one difference I have with you is that I don’t see why comments they’ve already made before you blocked them should disappear for other readers of your articles. That’s what, I think, creates a misimpression and functions to effectively censor criticism. What @TheDidiDelgado did is particularly egregious in this case, because she blocked me and made my response (describing her clear violation of Medium rules, which Medium refuses to enforce) disappear after my response got to #1 in the responses to her articles. Shenanigans like that shouldn’t be permitted. If she doesn’t want to see me or talk to me ever again and doesn’t want me to see her, that’s her business, but why should she be permitted to tell other Medium readers who come upon her articles what responses to those articles they should or shouldn’t be allowed to see? Blocking, in other words, should be a transaction between just two people, the blocker and blockee. No one else’s experience of Medium should be in any way affected by it.