The problem with this way of thinking is it nannies the user by disregarding their express instructions. Telling users what they really want instead of acting on their commands. It’s a subtle attack on users’s dignity and self-determination because it denies them control (without even telling them). It’s like Google deciding to change your search queries for you.

If you look at other systems (well designed systems) involving complex rules like a variety of firewalls and email processing rules, or tools like rsync, they are sophisticated and wise enough to not assume the user’s input is a mistake when a sensible interpretation is possible. They act on the user’s instructions. If a user does a general block but specifies a specific criteria to the contrary, there is only one smart way to interpret that while respecting the user’s wishes: to prioritise the specific rules above the general rules.

Otherwise you have blunt tools, disserviced nannied users, and chaos.

It makes sense to me that blocking an instance would block EVERYTHING from that instance.

But that’s not happening. The current implemation does not block everything. E.g. you still see public comments from the blocked instance. Lemmy is still deciding what the block and what not to block. And what it decides to block fails “the rule of least astonishment¹” particularly compared to what it decides /not/ to block.

¹ the principle/rule of least astonishment is an engineering concept that requires the system to behave in the least astonishing way. In the case at hand, if the user sees the contents of a community they subscribed to but nothing else on an instance they generally blocked, there would be no astonishment because the system would be acting on the user’s instructions. But the status quo is astonishing because the system decides to ignore some of the user’s instructions.

I believe what has happened is that Lemmy is so rich with bugs that users are simply conditioned to expect it to work poorly.