Blocking the app is a really extreme move that harms the vast majority of users who are using it in a harmless way.
Imagine if people started putting up fliers that said mean, harassing things on lamposts and building walls around campus. Would tearing down the buildings and lampposts be a good response? If the campus were just a big open field with no buildings or anywhere where someone could put up a mean, harassing flier then the students would be protected from being exposed to them.
No one should be harrased or be on the receiving end of mean behavior. At the same time, there usually is only so much a university or other organization can do to protect its members before those protections have negative consequences for lots and lots of innocent community members.
> No one should be harassed or be on the receiving end of mean behavior.
When people say this, it comes with an implied "except for some people". Lots of people deny it, but it's true. I like adding this implicit addendum to posts on Facebook explicitly, because every time, the person says something like, "Oh, no, I mean that for everyone." And then I say "You mean everyone including, for example, Richard Spencer?" Now, I don't care about that guy, but I was fairly astonished at how many people were normalizing political violence that time when somebody punched him. That's when I first understood viscerally that every one of those statements about inclusion and tolerance comes with an implied "except for some people."
> Why shouldn't the university offer some form of protection? Even if it's the form of blocking the app?
Why should the University be in charge of controlling what apps you use? If you don't like the app, don't use it, it's not difficult. Some people liked using it, and it had genuine uses, so blocking it is pretty extreme and pointless. And set's bad precident.
The police clearly don't give a shit. Someone has to do something. What are universities doing with all that money they get from tuition?