I'm going to point this out because I've seen a lot of people have this confusion.

Myself personally, and I believe most of the ones who agree with my stance on this issue, don't have a problem with the mute functionality as a whole. The idea of someone 'globally ignoring' me such that nothing I ever produce will be witnessed by that person doesn't bother me.

However, when that person is able to completely lock you out of a conversation such that you're forced to 'create your own small island' just to get your opinion heard, there's a problem. Not just because it's inherently unfair, but because that's where the discussion is happening, and forcing someone to create their own small island just ensures that their viewpoint isn't seen or heard by a lot of people all because a single person didn't want it to be seen or heard.

There's this attitude that because the people participating are "person X's followers", person X should be able to allow/disallow commentary. Why? According to what Hubski likes to parrot about themselves, you follow someone to see the content they produce, not the moderations they produce. If someone comments on that content, and person Y doesn't want to see the comment, they can themselves moderate it, why do we need, or expect, person X to moderate person Y's experience?

This is a separate issue from discouraging trolls and the like. You do not need this feature in order to be able to discourage certain people. Hell, I'd be ok with a sort order that placed the muted person's responses lower in the thread for everyone just as long as anyone who was willing to read through the entire thing would also see the responses of the person muted.

It's really about taking your ball and going home because someone offended you.