There are a few reasons why most social media platforms don’t allow you to temporarily block someone for a set period of time like 48 hours:
Temporary blocks could lead to abuse
If social networks allowed temporary blocks, they could be misused by those looking to harass or bully others. A user could repeatedly block someone for short periods just to disrupt their experience and send a nasty message. The impacted user would be frequently blocked and unblocked, unable to have any real recourse. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter want to avoid enabling this type of trolling behavior.
Permanent blocks set clear expectations
With permanent blocks, both users understand that one person has severed contact with the other. There’s no mixed messaging about whether the block is temporary or indefinite. Temporary blocks could lead to confusion and fights over when the block period has ended.
Temporary blocks go against the nature of most sites
Part of the appeal of social networks is their openness and connectivity. People use them to stay in touch with friends, family, coworkers, brands, celebrities, and more. Allowing temporary blocks encourages users to periodically shut out others from their online lives, which goes against the ethos of community and sharing these platforms aim to foster.
Users can mute instead
Rather than blocking, users who need a break from someone’s posts can mute that person for a chosen time period, like 48 hours. Muting prevents seeing someone’s content in your feed without blocking them entirely. It allows cooling off from bothersome posts without resorting to a more extreme option like blocking.
Temporary blocks would be tricky to enforce
It would pose challenges for platforms to make temporary blocks truly temporary. For example, what happens when the 48 hour period ends? Does the block automatically lift? Does the blocking user get a notification that it’s expiring? There are tricky technical and design considerations.
Permanent blocks are simpler to implement
From a product development perspective, enabling indefinite blocks is far simpler than building in support for nuanced temporary blocking. Permanent blocks require less coding effort and fewer ongoing resources. Given all the reasons not to offer temporary blocks, most platforms opt to keep things simple.
Temporary blocks may disrupt advertising
Social platforms rely heavily on advertising revenue. Allowing short-term blocks could undermine their business model. Advertisers want to reach the broadest audience possible. If users frequently blocked each other for 48 hours, it would shrink the potential ad reach at any given time.
| Platform | Block Length | Other Options |
|---|---|---|
| Permanent | Unfriend, unfollow, mute | |
| Permanent | Mute, ignore retweets | |
| Permanent | Mute stories, posts, messages | |
| TikTok | Permanent | Mute |
As the table shows, major social platforms only allow indefinite blocks. Their alternatives like muting provide temporary options short of fully blocking another user.
Legal concerns around temporary blocks
There may be legal risks if platforms enabled short-term blocks. A disgruntled user who was repeatedly blocked for 48 hours could try to sue for restriction of access. Even if the lawsuit was unsuccessful, it could be a costly headache for the social network. Permanent blocks help shield companies from potential legal action.
User expectations are based on permanent blocks
Billions of people are now accustomed to permanent account blocking. Changing the model to enable temporary blocks would go against user expectations and cause confusion. Uncertainty would arise around when and why blocks end. It’s simpler for platforms to maintain current norms.
Temporary blocking features could be abused
In addition to the bullying concerns mentioned earlier, short-term blocking options open the door to other unintended consequences. For example, bad actors could automate temporary blocks to silence voices they want to censor. Or abusive users could block their victims for stretches like 48 hours to exert control in toxic relationships.
Focus is on improving permanent block functions
Rather than building temporary block capabilities, platforms are focused on enhancing their existing permanent block features. Efforts are devoted to making permanent blocks easier to use, more visible, and more effective at limiting unwanted interactions.
The permanence of permanent blocks is considered a benefit
Platforms want to give users recourse to decisively cut off contact with those spreading negativity or toxicity. The permanence of indefinite blocks provides that. If blocks could always be reversed in 48 hours, it would be harder to firmly shut out bad actors.
Conclusion
In summary, temporary 48 hour blocking would likely create more problems than benefits across major social networks. Permanent blocks establish clear boundaries between users, are simpler to implement, avoid enabling harassment, and give people definitive ways to shut out unwanted interactions. Rather than introduce short-term blocks, platforms are focused on refining their permanent block functions to empower users.