I Block People.

I blocked a certain Peter, and I don’t even remember his name. He left a comment on the video about Navalny, claiming I was lying. He’s a German with a perspective clearly influenced by the German media. First of all, I’m not lying. Second, when I express my opinion, I don’t do it randomly but based on solid arguments that give me the intellectual and moral right to do so.

Even when my opinions are speculative or based on intuition, that intuition is grounded in real clues and observations visible to me. In cognitive psychology, intuition isn’t just a “feeling” but a rapid process of unconscious analysis built on experience, memory, and learned patterns. Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel laureate, demonstrated that intuition can be a valid decision-making tool when supported by pre-existing knowledge.

If you’re unable to understand my perspective or accept a reality that’s obvious to me—especially on my own channel—I don’t grant you the right to express yourself or share your opinion here. A fundamental principle is that freedom of speech doesn’t guarantee you access to every platform. Even in established democracies, private spaces—whether physical or digital—have their own rules. My channel is the equivalent of my personal intellectual property, where I set the rules and filters.

I’m not interested in what the law says in this particular case because we’re talking about a private space for expression. But hold on, if we’re bringing up the law, how dare you call me a liar? Are you blaming me? Defaming me? Making false accusations? How dare you? I can far more easily restrict your ability to express yourself on my channel than you can force me into a debate. Beyond being offensive, false accusations set a negative precedent: if you let an unwarranted attack remain public, you create an environment where aggression and slander become normalized. According to Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence effect, people with balanced opinions withdraw from discussions when they see spaces dominated by attacks, leaving room only for extremes.

Before making accusations without knowing me, make sure you can back up what you say, first for your own sake. Second, ensure I can’t counter your claims. And third, think carefully: is it really worth starting a dispute without being certain you’ll win? An opinion isn’t exempt from responsibility just because it’s framed as a “personal view.” There’s an ethics of communication. Even subjective statements need to be supported by minimal arguments and evidence; otherwise, they become empty rhetoric or disinformation by insinuation.

I say this because, in most cases, we can’t be objective, and our ego prevents us from seeing the truth in front of our eyes or perceiving reality as it is. When someone says “you’re lying” without logically challenging your claims, they’re not engaging in an exchange of ideas—they’re attacking the person. In the science of argumentation, this is a classic logical fallacy (argumentum ad hominem), which invalidates the discussion from the start. And beyond ego, other factors distort our perception of reality—like intellect, lack of discernment, or the desire to argue for attention.

People often think they can say anything online, invoking freedom of speech, but they forget about digital responsibility. Studies on online communication show that abusive behaviors are amplified by the online disinhibition effect, where anonymity and physical distance reduce self-control and increase aggression, as Suler (2004) argues.

So yes, I block people I don’t consider capable of accepting certain ideas or who come with baseless accusations. Many have said I resort to such actions because I’m afraid of the truth. On the contrary. My truth is unshakable, and I’m not afraid to admit I block you, but the reason I block you is that I don’t allow you to exercise your right to an opinion, especially if you bring false accusations, threats, or fail to do your research first. Censoring toxic comments doesn’t mean you’re afraid of them—it means you’re protecting your community and the quality of your content. Active moderation is a practice used by all major platforms to prevent spaces from turning into zones of constant conflict.

If you’ve threatened me or made a false accusation once, I assume you don’t like me or my content, so not only do I avoid further interactions with you, but I also help you avoid me. Neuroscience on emotions shows that when the amygdala takes over (the so-called amygdala hijack), rationality decreases, and reactions become impulsive and exaggerated. Many who attack online don’t do so because they have arguments but because they can’t manage their anger or frustration.

Don’t like it? I don’t care. Keeping toxic people in your digital space consumes time, energy, and attention. In mental health psychology, protecting your social environment from negative influences is a key factor in reducing chronic stress. BLOCK!!!

The online space is accessible to everyone, regardless of social status, professional background, or education level, and inevitably includes minors. Despite content warnings, technological reality shows that minors and teens can easily access materials not meant for them, bypassing filters or restrictions through simple searches or fake accounts.

Developmental psychology (Piaget, Erikson) emphasizes that during childhood and adolescence, individuals are in a continuous process of forming their identity and mechanisms for understanding the world. In this context, online interactions directly shape critical thinking, values, and social behavior. Verbal aggression, even when directed at an idea rather than a person, is perceived by minors as validating conflict as a primary mode of communication.

Social neuroscience confirms that adolescents are far more sensitive to negative emotional stimuli because the prefrontal cortex—the area responsible for impulse control and evaluating consequences—isn’t fully developed until around age 25. Meanwhile, the limbic system, responsible for emotional reactions, is highly active during this period. This means young people tend to mimic behaviors observed online without deep critical analysis.

Thus, when you choose to aggressively attack an idea just because you don’t understand it or want to argue online, you indirectly send a destructive behavioral model: that the volume of your voice and the intensity of your attack can replace rational arguments. Social learning theory (Bandura) clearly shows that people—especially children—learn by observing and imitating the behaviors of those around them, and the digital environment is now their primary “surroundings.”

Moreover, studies in communication psychology show that the tone of a conversation is often perceived more strongly than the content of the argument. A minor witnessing a debate dominated by personal attacks and aggressive irony doesn’t necessarily retain the idea being discussed but the way participants interact—and this becomes a benchmark for acceptable behavior.

So, freedom of speech shouldn’t be seen only as an individual right but also as a collective responsibility for how we influence the generations growing up now, especially when parenting systems have become so distorted. When you express your opinion with respect and logical arguments, you create a digital space where minors can learn to debate healthily. When you choose aggression, you set a precedent that can normalize verbal violence and extreme polarization.

In conclusion, keep these points in mind:

1. The right to expression is not absolute in private spaces.

2. Unfounded comments erode the quality of debate.

3. The right to an opinion doesn’t exempt you from responsibility for it.

4. Ad hominem attacks are not debates.

5. The internet is not a place “without consequences.”

6. Filtering comments is an act of intellectual cleansing, not fear.

7. People don’t always attack because they’re right—sometimes they attack because they’ve lost control of their emotions.

8. Blocking is also an act of psychological hygiene.