As much as I despise Musk and Twitter and hope that both die a painful death, what is actually proposed here is honestly a change for the better: It’s not about preventing people from blocking users, it’s about blocked users being able to see public posts, which they could also see by just logging out. This is being honest about what a block does and avoids giving people a wrong sense of privacy that they simply don’t have on the platform. From what I’ve heard there is a possibility to post for followers-only which in combination with requiring approval to follow and that isn’t going away here either…
Twitter massively reduced visibility for logged-out users, so just logging out doesn’t help, you have to log into a different account. This additional fraction reduces the amount of harassment a lot. Not sure that being “more honest” is worth the price, especially when an info box could achieve the same without making harassment easier.
Twitter massively reduced visibility for logged-out users,
I know, but it still didn’t fully remove it.
Not sure that being “more honest” is worth the price
The thing is that there really is no price, nor was there ever one. Your suggestion that you think there is demonstrates that the way blocking worked gave people dangerously wrong ideas. It’s about being clear to people what they can and cannot expect. Anything else is ACTUALLY dangerous.
I’m not advocating against a seatbelt, I’m advocating against not wearing it, “because I am confident that I can hold on to something in case of a collision” or similar stupid reasons. Expecting that blocking does anything to hide public posts that you can simply open in another browser (or in the same browser in private browsing mode) is not a seatbelt, it is the equivalent of a slightly stronger handle on top of the car window that is being advertized as a feature to protect you in case of an accident.
This change first and foremost makes it clear that that handle does nothing meaningful and that you should wear an actual seatbelt (follower-only posts, ideally with restricted followers) instead, if you are worried about a collision. Twitter is a public forum. You can’t tell people to leave you alone, shout with a megaphone across the marketplace and then be annoyed when they hear you. If you don’t want them to hear you, don’t use a megaphone.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be fully removed to have an effect.
The thing is that there really is no price, nor was there ever one. Your suggestion that you think there is demonstrates that the way blocking worked gave people dangerously wrong ideas.
Sorry, but you don’t get to redefine how humans work. There is a price, because friction reduces the likelihood of people following through. Removing that friction increases the likelihood of people following through. You might not want to believe this to be the case, but please read studies on the topic - it’s just how humans work. You don’t get to dismiss negative effects because you don’t believe in them.
No, it’s not just about stalkers, it’s about harassment in general. But even if it were, even stalkers are still people and don’t work fundamentally different.
Feel free to show any research proving me wrong, but unless you find any, the reasonable position is “humans work the same on this topic as on others”.
Nah, bullshit. This is 100% Musk’s fragile ego getting upset that people blocked him. He wants to be able to force his and his evil friends’ opinions into the faces of people who don’t want to see it.
That’s the opposite of what’s happening. In this case, Musk would have blocked you, and you would want to see his posts (for some reason). You could normally see a user who’s blocked your posts by just opening the thread in an incognito tab to view as a logged out user. This just cuts out that step and lets you see the user’s posts without doing that.
As much as I despise Musk and Twitter and hope that both die a painful death, what is actually proposed here is honestly a change for the better: It’s not about preventing people from blocking users, it’s about blocked users being able to see public posts, which they could also see by just logging out. This is being honest about what a block does and avoids giving people a wrong sense of privacy that they simply don’t have on the platform. From what I’ve heard there is a possibility to post for followers-only which in combination with requiring approval to follow and that isn’t going away here either…
Twitter massively reduced visibility for logged-out users, so just logging out doesn’t help, you have to log into a different account. This additional fraction reduces the amount of harassment a lot. Not sure that being “more honest” is worth the price, especially when an info box could achieve the same without making harassment easier.
I know, but it still didn’t fully remove it.
The thing is that there really is no price, nor was there ever one. Your suggestion that you think there is demonstrates that the way blocking worked gave people dangerously wrong ideas. It’s about being clear to people what they can and cannot expect. Anything else is ACTUALLY dangerous.
Wearing a seatbelt in a moving vehicle does not magically prevent all deaths upon an accident. Do you recommend we should stop wearing seatbelts?
If there are measures in place that reduce the danger of something happening, it’s not wise to remove them just because they’re not 100% effective.
I’m not advocating against a seatbelt, I’m advocating against not wearing it, “because I am confident that I can hold on to something in case of a collision” or similar stupid reasons. Expecting that blocking does anything to hide public posts that you can simply open in another browser (or in the same browser in private browsing mode) is not a seatbelt, it is the equivalent of a slightly stronger handle on top of the car window that is being advertized as a feature to protect you in case of an accident.
This change first and foremost makes it clear that that handle does nothing meaningful and that you should wear an actual seatbelt (follower-only posts, ideally with restricted followers) instead, if you are worried about a collision. Twitter is a public forum. You can’t tell people to leave you alone, shout with a megaphone across the marketplace and then be annoyed when they hear you. If you don’t want them to hear you, don’t use a megaphone.
Sure, but it doesn’t have to be fully removed to have an effect.
Sorry, but you don’t get to redefine how humans work. There is a price, because friction reduces the likelihood of people following through. Removing that friction increases the likelihood of people following through. You might not want to believe this to be the case, but please read studies on the topic - it’s just how humans work. You don’t get to dismiss negative effects because you don’t believe in them.
The argument here is literally about stalkers. Not about random uninterested people that don’t care.
No, it’s not just about stalkers, it’s about harassment in general. But even if it were, even stalkers are still people and don’t work fundamentally different.
Feel free to show any research proving me wrong, but unless you find any, the reasonable position is “humans work the same on this topic as on others”.
Nah, bullshit. This is 100% Musk’s fragile ego getting upset that people blocked him. He wants to be able to force his and his evil friends’ opinions into the faces of people who don’t want to see it.
Please read again what he changed and then try to figure out why your rationale is clearly not what this is about.
That’s the opposite of what’s happening. In this case, Musk would have blocked you, and you would want to see his posts (for some reason). You could normally see a user who’s blocked your posts by just opening the thread in an incognito tab to view as a logged out user. This just cuts out that step and lets you see the user’s posts without doing that.