Just f**king block people

I drafted this in 2021 and just fucking blocking people has only worked better and better for me with time.

I used to be really into not having an echo chamber, so I wouldn't block anyone and I would spend a lot of (admittedly, fun, at the time) time investigating the beliefs of hostile people. But that strategy didn't really work to create a balanced sample of views, backgrounds, and personalities. I think I had more thought diversity in my feed than if I had just picked people to conform to my biases, and I learned a lot about the fears and grievances of niche groups, but it also disproportionately increased my engagement with agitated people with fringe beliefs.

I still think it's very important not to get caught up in your own little world, but unfortunately an all-comers policy just got me caught up in other people's little worlds.

I was constantly performing what I saw as epistemic virtue to myself by putting up with these people, because I used to confuse exercising my freedom of association with "creating a bubble." This was very misguided. First, as you will never directly sample the entire world, you have an information bubble no matter what. The point is the quality of the information bubble-- for me, how well it reflects the truth about the world outside the bubble. Second, you can’t avoid exercising discretion, not only for the sake of your sanity and quality of interaction, but to have a more externally valid bubble! Unfiltered =/= unbiased.

I used to think I needed justification to unfriend or block someone. Like it needed to be proven, not just that they were an energy drain or a time suck for me, but that they were objectively insincere or dangerous. Preposterous! It's like I thought not talking to me was some grave punishment akin to banishment and I couldn't deprive these internet randos of due process. A lot of the people I wrangled with depended on the kind of stupid scrupulosity so many of us have about not closing your ears to gadflies ("what if they turn out to be Socrates?!"), which I now think, in my case, was also a kind of vanity-- fear of being seen as the Pharisee in the Chick tract.

There's no substitute for your own judgment past a certain point. Maybe some unpleasant, hostile, rambling internet acquaintance really is a prophet, and you would never have picked up on that by using your discretion-- you're too stupid or mind-killed to get it. Even if that messiah were out there, it's clear you don't have the faculties to try to figure out who they are, and it seems dumb to spend your life kissing all the random frogs who encounter you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

So here's an idea: Value what's true and not particular attempts at epistemic hygiene, like being open to all comers. It's not wrong to choose to interact only with people you like or whose contributions you find valuable. If you value the truth, you will seek dissenting views on your own, without having to accept all the dissenters that come to you. Sometimes you have to interact with people you don't like, but not when you only know them on social media! They can be out of your life with the click of a button! Even if you miss out on true criticism or outside views using this strategy, exposure to thought diversity is just one part of trying to have an accurate worldview. Use the positive environment with people you respect to try to learn new things, build models of the world, and understand more deeply. It may not be better on every dimension (though it also may well be better on every dimension), but I'm much happier with the expected value of this new strategy.

(Standard disclaimer.)