There is something profoundly weird about viewing this as the ability to "eject others." That happens once (if ever).
Instead, what I see if the idea that someone believes that they are entitled to continue harassing people that want nothing to do with them. In other scenarios, this would be unthinkable. "Oh, I know the girl says she doesn't want to talk to me and has a protective order ... but I think that since she is throwing a party, I have a right to show up!"
Other social media platforms that implement the blocking feature do it differently for this reason. I respect that they don't want to use a third-party plugin to have true blocking (instead using the default upgrade to ignore), but this isn't how it is always implemented.
To the extent "you can't accept" that people who do not want to talk to you have the right to choose to not have you engage with them, I will respectfully say that I do not agree with this position, and I think that this approach leads to the toxicity that marks a lot of internet discourse.
More simply- we tend to confuse the rules that work well in real life interactions with those that work on-line. In real life, if you bug someone badly enough that they walk away and eventually seek a protective order, you do not continually demand the right to keep engaging with them (or if you do, others will view it for what it is).