System working very very much as intended there!
The only /real/ false positives it's ever generated that I'm aware of are a handful of people closely following hate group leaders to report on them, all of whom easily passed through the whitelisting process, and support the blocker wholeheartedly.
These all seem like mutually exclusive criticisms (still lacking in substantiation). Which one is it?
Also, even if you granted all of the above concerns, what business is it of anyone's if they choose not to have to listen to people? Right of association, and all. If it's really as damaging as you claim, either people will see that (and stop), or they won't.
p.s. 'hugbox' is a pretty amazingly offensive term, especially on a community site which has generally shown broad support for neuro-diversity, and I don't think it honors the community guideline to "Be civil".
The "only thing it does" is block people who follow specific accounts, as they overwhelmingly tend to be annoying GamerGaters on Twitter. You only find it harmful because people you haven't personally annoyed yet are pre-emptively blocking you from doing so.
I mean, imagine what I can do with gin.
Why are you criticizing a solution to a problem you don't have without offering an alternative? It's almost like you don't care about the problem or the people it impacts at all.
For me it's simply a matter of making twitter usable.
I wasn't aware this existed and never had the slightest need, but following GDC on twitter this year was a spam fest without it.