5 ms·

Slightly off topic: I've always found twitter-style blocking totally nonsensical. I mean: you've got a public account. Blocking should prevent people from reply

Slightly off topic: I've always found twitter-style blocking totally nonsensical. I mean: you've got a public account. Blocking should prevent people from replying or tweeting at you, and from sending you DMs, maybe even retweeting what you said (even though I'm not sure about the usefulness of this last thing)... but why should ANYONE be prevented at just READING PUBLIC CONTENT when LOGGED IN? (I think the same applies for Facebook and yes, I think that's nonsensical as well)

bodas 8y ago
Twitter realises it is stupid. However many of their technologically illiterate users don't and when they tried to change it there was an outcry that Twitter was helping abuse or something silly like that. Keeping the feature is as is easier than educating their users how computers work.
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I've also wondered about this, and the only conclusion I could come to is quite cynical. Think about the practical effects. It encourages people to create multiple accounts and also encourages warring of various sorts. These behaviors send Twitter's usage and user numbers up without bots while enabling complete plausible deniability about any complicity. It's a problem with ad-driven networks. Their goal is to increase user numbers which enables them to inflate their advertised reach and thus increase their overall revenue. One might joke about Facebook bragging about its reach: "We have more than 2 billion users and only 25% are located in the USA!" Subtlety, math, and statistical references all in one one-liner joke - what could be better?
- Sean1708 8y ago
  They tried to change the behaviour to the one that makes sense (to us) but there was backlash from users and so they reverted the change.[0] [0]: https://www.imore.com/twitter-changes-how-block-works-heres-what-you-need-know https://www.imore.com/twitter-changes-how-block-works-heres-...
  - alanfranzoni 8y ago
    I didn't know that. Well, ok.
zem 8y ago
it raises the friction for people quoting your tweets and encouraging their followers to harass you.
- alanfranzoni 8y ago
  Well... raises by how much? Is that really significant? By the way... that's it.
  - zem 8y ago
    i'm betting it is - it's a classic funnel problem, where the more friction you add to a process the more people will abandon it.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bodas 8y ago

Twitter realises it is stupid. However many of their technologically illiterate users don't and when they tried to change it there was an outcry that Twitter was helping abuse or something silly like that. Keeping the feature is as is easier than educating their users how computers work.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

I've also wondered about this, and the only conclusion I could come to is quite cynical. Think about the practical effects. It encourages people to create multiple accounts and also encourages warring of various sorts. These behaviors send Twitter's usage and user numbers up without bots while enabling complete plausible deniability about any complicity. It's a problem with ad-driven networks. Their goal is to increase user numbers which enables them to inflate their advertised reach and thus increase their overall revenue. One might joke about Facebook bragging about its reach: "We have more than 2 billion users and only 25% are located in the USA!" Subtlety, math, and statistical references all in one one-liner joke - what could be better?

Sean1708 8y ago
They tried to change the behaviour to the one that makes sense (to us) but there was backlash from users and so they reverted the change.[0] [0]: https://www.imore.com/twitter-changes-how-block-works-heres-what-you-need-know https://www.imore.com/twitter-changes-how-block-works-heres-...
- alanfranzoni 8y ago
  I didn't know that. Well, ok.

zem 8y ago

it raises the friction for people quoting your tweets and encouraging their followers to harass you.

alanfranzoni 8y ago
Well... raises by how much? Is that really significant? By the way... that's it.
- zem 8y ago
  i'm betting it is - it's a classic funnel problem, where the more friction you add to a process the more people will abandon it.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]