Yes it could encourage it more - granted - and if it became a large problem then all the more reason to remain vigilant. But... why not allow the end user the choice? This is "social media", we are just chatting here! And if someone knows themselves well enough to realize how easily they get triggered and want a different experience than those of us who would leave that feature turned off, why should they be prevented from such? The fact that this is an "option" provided for the end user to choose from is the crucial difference imho, rather than leave every decision to the admins and mods.
Unless you take the viewpoint that people are too stupid to make choices for themselves and need to be controlled so that they receive solely what is "best" for them - which might or might not be a valid topic we could argue but I was ignoring it here.
And yes, people who have such controversial content filtering will not see... controversial content, by design? That's not a bug though, it's a feature? Really! You can turn off that feature - I likewise already have (it was virtually literally the first thing I did upon making my PieFed account) - but if someone wants such content to be hidden/removed, then that is their choice, yeah?
there is no qualitative difference for you individually if you find a particular user annoying
There is a HUGE difference though - don't you see how blocking users blocks entire USERS, while blocking content (e.g. an individual comment underneath a post) blocks only each individual item of content? It's a rather ENORMOUS difference actually? What if a user posts both politics and also memes and you enjoy the latter though cannot stand the former? Also, blocking is permanent, no matter how many years pass between the decision and later content.
I really don't see how the things you describe for Piefed would change how Mods react to what they perceive as systematic downvoting.
Granted that it is up to the mods in question, but PieFed at least offers additional choices that can be made - just as in the example I have regarding Trump and Musk, controversial content could be left in, trusting that those that do not want to see it can choose to filter it out, rather than submit a complaint to the mods (or admins) that they would prefer that such filtering work be done for them (bc once you see something it really is too late to unsee it). Here, one community can have multiple types of users rather than have to make a separate community to serve all the variety of needs.
Which drastically reduces the burden of moderation, as well as increases choice, and encourages posting content that otherwise people may be too hesitant to post for wondering how the community will respond, positively or negatively or neutral. In PieFed it is no longer about the binary decision to "remove content" vs. "not remove content", but rather connecting users with the content that they most want to see - in part, yes, by filtering out content that the users do not want to see, since attention is a limited commodity.
I see it, but yeah I also see what you mean: the scale of it happening here is lesser.
Keep in mind though that the default of collapsing or even hiding controversial content is something like 10 downvotes per every upvote for the former and far more for the latter (2x? 5x? I don't want to create a new account just to find the current set of defaults but those are what I recall from many months ago when I created this one). Someone could in theory put ridiculous values in the boxes to hide every post with zero upvotes and one downvote, but that is extremely far from the intended use case scenario.
But sure I'll bite: so what if someone did that though - if that was their choice, then stupid as it might be, and regardless of how it may leave no content leftover after the downvote brigades got through with their efforts, but even so, if someone CHOSE that for themselves, then you have not explained why they should be prevented from screwing themselves over in that manner?