What was the rationale behind that? This could be a little bit "problematic", what happens when someone spews bullshit about something or someone and you cannot correct him? (Most obvious example: user A claims something untrue about user B, user A has muted user B; now user B cannot comment on the accusations, not without making his own post at least. While it could be said "well, let B ignore A, then his or her problem is null", everyone else would still see and read that comment without hearing the opposing view)If you mute a user, that user cannot comment on your posts.
Functions like this are always a double-edged sword. Currently, I can't see who you ignore or mute. However, when I first rolled out ignoring that information was public. I am inclined to revert back to that as it will help keep people honest. In that case, if you trash-talk me, and everyone can see that you mute mk, then it probably makes you look worse than me. Of course, it would be best if these kinds of functions weren't needed at all.
Perhaps make the mute list public, but not the ignore list? I would ignore someone who may be a great person, but perhaps we just don't share similar taste in much of anything at all. On the other hand, I would mute someone who is being a jerk and/or harassing me or other people in my submissions. There's a big difference between the two, imo, and just personally I would prefer to keep my ignore list private, if only to spare people's feelings if they happen to end up there.