Ignoring undesireables, is an interesting topic.
Trolls are one kind of mindless thing; other kinds of provocative, present a similar problem.
Put anything out there and people will have an opinion about it; where there is consensus, there is a null controversy but where there is difference of opinion, having tools to help manage that difference, can be useful to empowering people with option to choose.
There is a parallel I wonder with the way media and politics has tended to binary extremes. People cuss at media and politics, for being lazy and I can’t suggest it is deliberate but presenting options that cater to extreme positions, is a lazy, almost optimized, way of catering to all. The least effort, see maximum reward.
The same option to maximize reward, is available to marketing. Where you look to cater to the [open minded and close minded]; or [optimistic and pessimistic], each audience will want different emphasis.
The provider of any topic, may fairly not care to cater to all interests and cannot expect to… but the flipside is that the observer will want topics that are to their interest and not what offends them.
Yet, I wonder with tool comes risk… provide a good tool and you end up creating echo chambers… and from echo chambers, trolls!
What politicians miss, is that the effort to not pander to the easy solution, is where the value lies. Too many lazy opportunists and not enough feedback, has led us to where we are…
How to avoid echo chambers?..
One option perhaps is the sum of other’s opinions, which might soften the risk of defaulting to extremes. Then, only the extremes which have a common consensus are excluded and less often where the perception of the individual is in error.