4 ms·

There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see wha

There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back.

forapurpose 8y ago
> There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back. The First Amendment concerns speech, not listening. It protects citizen's right to speak to government, not to hear what government says (not a highly sought-after civil right!). I wonder if Mute is legal.
- txcwpalpha 8y ago
  I haven't read the full text of the decision yet, but from the parts I have read, it appears as though the judge is saying she doesn't see any issue with Trump muting people, and only is saying blocking is not allowed. It confused me at first, because it seems like if the First Amendment would be applied to this, it would be to make sure that Twitter users can communicate to Trump, not to make sure that Twitter users can see Trump's tweets. But after understanding it a bit more, the actual issue at question here is that blocking prevents the blocked user from doing things like retweeting the blocking user's tweets, which the judge apparently sees as artificially restricting what the blocked user is able to say.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  There's nothing saying that a government has to listen to you.
dionidium 8y ago
It's not only much simpler, it's the only action that actually makes any sense. Obviously, people should be given the ability to hide and ignore things they don't want to see, but what's the point of a mode in which I simply have to log out to view your content? There's an enormous difference between, "I am offended by X, so I don't want to see it" and "I am offended by X, so I don't want them to see me (unless they simply log out)." That feature has never made any sense.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
Agreed mute is kind of like blocking. Except that muting does not prevent other people reading comments on your tweets from reading them. I don't know who he blocks on a regular basis, so I am really speculating here. The cases I have seen I would classify as 'truthers'. Those are people who post things that link to or refute statements made by Trump in the tweet that he cannot effectively argue with. My guess here is that the dischordant notes in the comments, even when he doesn't see them will have his followers who are arguing with these people retweeting and/or replying and keep the data visible. That limits Trump's ability to control the narrative and with enough of these people it could reach a situation where there are more 'counter' replies than actual supporting replies. Few people enjoy using a platform where your every statement is countered by people pointing out opposing and counter factual information.

There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back.

forapurpose 8y ago

> There's a Mute button. It's like Block but much simpler, in that it doesn't prevent other people from following him or reading his tweets. He just won't see what they say back. The First Amendment concerns speech, not listening. It protects citizen's right to speak to government, not to hear what government says (not a highly sought-after civil right!). I wonder if Mute is legal.

txcwpalpha 8y ago
I haven't read the full text of the decision yet, but from the parts I have read, it appears as though the judge is saying she doesn't see any issue with Trump muting people, and only is saying blocking is not allowed. It confused me at first, because it seems like if the First Amendment would be applied to this, it would be to make sure that Twitter users can communicate to Trump, not to make sure that Twitter users can see Trump's tweets. But after understanding it a bit more, the actual issue at question here is that blocking prevents the blocked user from doing things like retweeting the blocking user's tweets, which the judge apparently sees as artificially restricting what the blocked user is able to say.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
There's nothing saying that a government has to listen to you.

dionidium 8y ago

It's not only much simpler, it's the only action that actually makes any sense. Obviously, people should be given the ability to hide and ignore things they don't want to see, but what's the point of a mode in which I simply have to log out to view your content? There's an enormous difference between, "I am offended by X, so I don't want to see it" and "I am offended by X, so I don't want them to see me (unless they simply log out)." That feature has never made any sense.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

Agreed mute is kind of like blocking. Except that muting does not prevent other people reading comments on your tweets from reading them. I don't know who he blocks on a regular basis, so I am really speculating here. The cases I have seen I would classify as 'truthers'. Those are people who post things that link to or refute statements made by Trump in the tweet that he cannot effectively argue with. My guess here is that the dischordant notes in the comments, even when he doesn't see them will have his followers who are arguing with these people retweeting and/or replying and keep the data visible. That limits Trump's ability to control the narrative and with enough of these people it could reach a situation where there are more 'counter' replies than actual supporting replies. Few people enjoy using a platform where your every statement is countered by people pointing out opposing and counter factual information.