The link is Elon's reply to the OP.
The core of conservative ideology is legislating that your coworkers and family (notice how I didn't say friends) are legally required to listen to your racist joke and get mad at it but then you dont face any consequences
It's really telling that everytime they try to make their own space it fails because they don't wanna have to listen to each other either.
Offending people without consequence is literally the most important thing in the world to these dipshits.
tbh he's right here (eww)
It never made sense that blocking someone stopped them from seeing your public posts. The point of blocking is so you don't have to see their posts (including them not being able to interact with you), not the other way around.
And it was pretty easy to get around until he (stupidly) started requiring you to be logged in to see anything. Even then you just need an alt account to get around it and the blocker would never know.
That doesn't make it any harder for someone to harass you. They can't harass you if they can't interact with you.
And being worried about stalking is extremely counter to posting something publicly.
Wanting to post something publicly except to all the specific dipshits you took additional actions to not want to interact with seems like a pretty reasonable want.
Considering that's the exact moderation approach of the website were all on.
Considering that's the exact moderation approach of the website were all on.
Except it literally isn't? You can't block someone from seeing your posts on here.
There's a level of anonymity here where OpSec is up to the user for the most part.
Twitter is much more connected to a lot of people's actual identities as it was also a space for organizations, businesses and other public figures to post to the general public, with these accounts being run mostly by the public figure themselves, and PR for the really rich people and orgs. As such protections on Twitter needed to be as broad as possible.
All fences are scalable and climbable, but as the other user was saying, it's good to make that climb harder for the bad actors in this scenario.
If somebody's being an antagonistic asshole they get banned pretty much immediatly because the mods understand there's nothing of value from some nazi coming in and quoting fbi crime statistics everytime somebody says you shouldn't murder black people.
Also nobody gives a shit about them reading your post it's the part where they respond like a nazi would that people have a problem with.
You can literally say "disengage" on this website to stop that shit and if the person keeps being a tool they can get banned just for that.
So yea that very much is what's happening here.
I think you're misunderstanding the change here. The change is solely about a blocked user being able to read the posts of the person who blocked them. This has nothing to do with banning or stopping them from being able to reply.
Oh shit my bad if they already can't reply to the post yea this seems trivial.
Sorry, don't use Twitter I thought this meant blocked users could see your posts and respond to them you just couldn't see their posts.
Im a dumbass and I apologize for wasting everyone's time.
why even use twitter at all? Especially now that it is owned by one of those aforementioned creeps who hate you.
The only hoop you have to jump through is using a Nitter instance. And the most dangerous abusers are most likely going to be determined enough to where doing this or creating a new account is not a deterrent.
False security is worse than no security. If people trust that the block function is reliable at stopping people from seeing your posts, and then those people post things publicly that they wouldn't share otherwise, that is leaving more people vulnerable than having no way to stop people from seeing your posts.
Nah if I block you I don’t want to interact with you at all, not even unknowingly. I prefer it being an opaque window going up.
Also is it not making it where we still see public posts that we’ve blocked? Bc that’s what I assumed since he’s like the most blocked account on the platform lol
Someone seeing your public posts isn't you interacting with them. You are posting something for everyone to see. If you don't want someone seeing it, don't make a public post.
There are rings of people and little pocket communities on Twitter and I think it’s good to be able to keep unwanted people out of that if someone wants to.
If I block someone I don’t want them stalking through my account. I think it’s fine to let people decide who can and cannot see their content
You are posting something for everyone to see.
sounds like they're actually posting something for everyone but the people they don't like to see, which sounds reasonable?
That's not really how public posts work. If it can be seen by any arbitrary person you don't know and have never interacted with, it can been seen by anyone. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of your post which can be dangerous.
Also "remove the current block button" is such an incorrect and sensationalist way to put it. The block button isn't being removed, it's still there and its main functionality is still there.
This seems like pointless semantics.
Clearly there's a bunch ofnpeople who don't want chuds to see their posts and have their replies filled with slurs because they said that republicans suck.
So I guess they just need a new word for whatever that fucntion would be (block seems pretty good to me) especially considering most people don't want to see OR hear from dipshit chuds if they've said dumb enough shit to warrant additional actions, whatever you chose to call that action.
Note that women and non-binary are way more against this change than men in the replies and on this thread. Men and masc folks, we should take their word for it that this is a negative change.
Feels like this will encourage some pretty weird posting habits. If the block doesn't stop them from seeing you it means you can abuse people and block them, and be reasonably confident they can see that abuse, and cannot respond back.
You could definitely already have someone respond to you then immediately block you and you'd still see their response in your notifications.
And the solution to that is to block them back, same as if they were hurling abuse at you normally.
Do people not already reply then block to get the last word? (genuine question, I do not use twitter, but I know people do this on Reddit a ton)
I doubt it, you can still block seeing posts from accounts and block them from interacting with you which is the whole point of blocking.
Apple's guidelines aren't super specific but I don't see where they would require letting you block someone from even seeing your posts.
To prevent abuse, apps with user-generated content or social networking services must include:
A method for filtering objectionable material from being posted to the app
A mechanism to report offensive content and timely responses to concerns
The ability to block abusive users from the serviceDamn. I was hoping Apple would be able to just.. nuke Twitter and cause Elon to rage again.
