Why do social media platforms allow blocked users' comments to remain visible in public threads instead of hiding them f

The short version

In the discussions captured in the evidence, blocking is usually described as a tool to stop direct interaction with someone, not a tool to erase public content. Public threads are treated as shared spaces that stay intact for everyone. [7][19][35]

Public content stays public

A common explanation: if you post something publicly, it is public. Blocking is meant to reduce interactions, not to keep content secret from the blocked person. [18][19][20] Even a user arguing against that behavior said a reasonable approach would be to block the other person from replying on your posts, but still let them see and quote your public posts. [16]

Hiding would not really work anyway

Another frequent argument is that hiding blocked comments from the blocker is almost pointless, because the same content can still be reached other ways: logging out, making a second account, having someone quote the comment, or getting screenshots. [11][12][15][17][21] On Reddit, for example, you can log out or create a second account and see everything. [23]

Public threads do not belong to the original poster

In traditional forums, a thread is viewed as community property, not the thread starter's private space. So blocking is not meant to stop blocked people from posting in public threads; the community can keep participating even if the thread starter dislikes it. [35][36][39][41] One forum answer says forums are public, and only private groups let you control who can join. [38][41] Another commenter notes that no forum provider offers a way for a topic starter to block someone from posting in their topics. [40] Blocking, in this view, simply means "no direct communication anymore." [35]

There is also a difference between blocking someone you disagree with and controlling a conversation: making a thread does not mean owning it. [39][41]

Removing blocked comments can break the conversation

Some commenters argue that invisibly removing a blocked person's reply can hurt the thread for everyone because the conversation loses context. [24][25] A Bluesky user suggested it might be better to show a placeholder like "This reply is from a user you have blocked [show]" instead of completely hiding the reply, because hiding removes the useful context that a reply existed. [5] The exact way muted and blocked content should appear is still treated as an open design question. [6]

There is also a money motive

Some users suspect platforms have a financial incentive to keep anger-inducing comments visible: outrage drives engagement, and engagement drives ad revenue. [13][14] One commenter said that preventing people from seeing things that make them mad is "leaving money on the table." [13]

Blocking can be used to get the last word

Another reported side effect is that people use blocking to silence anyone who might disagree, so the blocker's own comment stays at the top of the thread without counterarguments. [1][8][9] Blocked users who could downvote or reply simply cannot see the comment anymore. [10]

Platforms actually handle this differently

• Steam: blocking is mostly about stopping direct communication and profile interaction. Public posts from blocked users can still appear in threads, often as a "(Blocked user - Show)" placeholder that you can reveal or ignore. [29][30][31][42]
• Reddit: blocking leaves a placeholder and permalink, and even tells you a post from someone who blocked you exists, although you can still see it by logging out or using another account. [22][23]
• Bluesky: its "nuclear block" behavior can hide a blocked user's post or reply from everyone, which some users criticized for creating an escalation ladder of blocking. [2][3][4]
• Threads: evidence says blocking stops the blocked user from seeing or interacting with you and also hides something, but the excerpt is cut off, so it is not clear exactly what gets hidden. [43] One user asked whether blocking would remove an unwanted comment on their post because they could not delete it. [34]

Some users want even stronger hiding. On Steam, users have complained that blocking does not hide everything and argued it should, to prevent harassment, stalking, spam, and trolling. [26][33] Others responded that stronger blocking should not stop blocked people from posting publicly; it should only stop annoying content from appearing to the blocker themselves. [32]

One important limitation: the evidence does not include official statements from the platforms explaining their reasoning. The explanations above are largely user- and commenter-provided reasoning, spread across Reddit, GitHub, Hacker News, Steam forums, and Threads. [1][5][13][26]