4 ms·

He also blocked pretty much anyone who got under his skin. Those he blocked were no longer able to see the stupid shit he said without special effort. In that w

He also blocked pretty much anyone who got under his skin. Those he blocked were no longer able to see the stupid shit he said without special effort. In that way, it was an effective way of silencing critics.

ketralnis 10y ago
Is that so bad? If he's on twitter to follow news or to have conversations that he enjoys or to promote himself, why allow that platform to be a way to criticise you? I certainly don't want a section of my phone or desktop to be devoted to all of the mean things said about me. I certainly wouldn't want such a thing hooked up to push notifications
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Because it's not "turn off notifications from this person". It's "hide my tweets from this person, but only when they're logged in" which is a particularly useless (not to mention misleading) form of "security".
  - nostrademons 10y ago
    The point isn't security, though, it's happiness. It's basically "These person's tweets make me upset, and so I'm going to not interact with them", which is a very basic form of boundary-setting which is thankfully supported by Twitter.
cyberferret 10y ago
Ah yes, I forgot about his rapid blocking of dissenters. Then again, I don't allow particularly obnoxious people into my household either, so I can't really blame anyone for not electing not to put up with abuse/complaints/harrassment if they don't wish to. Once again, I am guessing it is a battle of egos - nothing irritates the ego more than being silenced when it feels it has something to say. :) [NB - not directed at you directly, just a general observation of the Twitterverse]
- idlewords 10y ago
  I completely agree with you. I'm all for muting. The issue is the semantics of blocking in Twitter, which prevents those blocked from seeing subsequent tweets. You end up with situations where public figures can limit their audience to only those who agree with them, which isn't healthy for anyone.
  - talmand 10y ago
    Especially pathetic are the blockers that continue to discuss the people they blocked.

ketralnis 10y ago

Is that so bad? If he's on twitter to follow news or to have conversations that he enjoys or to promote himself, why allow that platform to be a way to criticise you? I certainly don't want a section of my phone or desktop to be devoted to all of the mean things said about me. I certainly wouldn't want such a thing hooked up to push notifications

tedunangst 10y ago
Because it's not "turn off notifications from this person". It's "hide my tweets from this person, but only when they're logged in" which is a particularly useless (not to mention misleading) form of "security".
- nostrademons 10y ago
  The point isn't security, though, it's happiness. It's basically "These person's tweets make me upset, and so I'm going to not interact with them", which is a very basic form of boundary-setting which is thankfully supported by Twitter.

cyberferret 10y ago

Ah yes, I forgot about his rapid blocking of dissenters. Then again, I don't allow particularly obnoxious people into my household either, so I can't really blame anyone for not electing not to put up with abuse/complaints/harrassment if they don't wish to. Once again, I am guessing it is a battle of egos - nothing irritates the ego more than being silenced when it feels it has something to say. :) [NB - not directed at you directly, just a general observation of the Twitterverse]

idlewords 10y ago
I completely agree with you. I'm all for muting. The issue is the semantics of blocking in Twitter, which prevents those blocked from seeing subsequent tweets. You end up with situations where public figures can limit their audience to only those who agree with them, which isn't healthy for anyone.
- talmand 10y ago
  Especially pathetic are the blockers that continue to discuss the people they blocked.