I posted this as a comment, but even during the time it took me to write it, that comment thread kept expanding! So here it is as a short post.
Let me add some thoughts to this particular thread.
I personally dislike muting users as it means I can become ignorant of the true environment. The few levers of control that a user has, should be used to create their preferred environment; a judicious use of the "follow" and "mute" features are designed to facilitate this. The additional "lever" of one's own psychology and state of mind is not something a chain can encode - that is everyone's personal responsibility.
The new extended mute feature is no different to the powers a "community moderator" would have, if we had the community-feature such as on Steem and Hive. Such a mod can block a user from their community for whatever reason. I have been pressing for many months to reinstall Communities, and it is now back on the list of future features, but is not a simple add-on, so will require some time.
However, moderating one's personal space is not identical to moderating a defined group of users - a community. It can be used in that way, and I wonder if some community-centred-accounts may wish to investigate how that can be done. The main difference is that a user can step into and then out of a particular community; they can choose to post within such a moderated environment, or not. But once you create your own environment, you then have to think carefully about the consequences - you cannot then "step outside" the environment you yourself created, apart from having an alt account. Much of the current discussions are about articulating those consequences.
Also note that such "personal environments" are dependent upon the front-end chosen. It would be better if such moderating parameters could be coded as levers of control by an individual user, but the choice still remains as to which platform one wishes to use. That is, in itself, a parameter. I do hope that there will remain one minimalist platform, just to see how that experiment would progress. Although not designed for posting, the Blurt blockexplorer is always there as a record of every action.
I dislike talking about "rights", though I sense most people feel they have some. The whole UDHR could easily have been written from the opposite point of view: a declaration of government obligations. Look around at how such "obligations" are being totally ignored and abused. This isn't the place for a long rant on rights, but let me focus on two Articles that contradict each other.
Article 19 states,"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 12 then limits the above rights with,"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
See the dilemma? You have "the right" to do both. So, freedom of speech goes hand in hand with the freedom to protect oneself. Indeed, this includes the freedom of silence. We also see this throughout the world; the promotion of the freedom of ignorance by the removal of all dissenting voices. But on this chain, you still have freedom of choice.
The "law", in the case of a blockchain, is the code, or more precisely, the functions given to users. My own aim is to ultimately create a set of functions that are both universal and reactive. We remain very far away from this goal. By universal, I mean that every user is subject to the same rules and functions - everybody has the same rights, if you wish to define it in those terms. The obligation of the chain is merely to process those actions. This is not a static environment, so as we bump up against limits, be they social or financial, then either the chain is reactive by design, or the design needs to be upgraded.
The consequences that arise from financial changes are often easier to predict, whereas those from social changes can open up new avenues of discontent. This doesn't mean the changes were wrong, it just means monitoring the resulting behaviour. This takes time.
Let me add a video not in the original comment.
Focus on what Peterson says in the last minute: "The incentive structures on the social media platforms, the social communication platforms, are wrong because the anti-social, psychopathic, Machiavellian, narcissistic types who use reputation derogation are privileged in their communications and not punished - and that's a very bad idea!