3 ms·

> With blocking, you could ask someone who knows you both to at least plead for your reinstatement. Facebook, Twitter, etc have quite publicly permabanned peop

> With blocking, you could ask someone who knows you both to at least plead for your reinstatement. Facebook, Twitter, etc have quite publicly permabanned people. I'm sorry but what recourse from that has been demonstrated so far? You're bringing up a person-to-person case that I have _three times now_ stated that I am not talking about.

icebraining 8y ago
You're bringing up a person-to-person case that I have _three times now_ stated that I am not talking about. People are doing that because that's what "block" in the social media context usually means. Sites ban, users block. And that's what the journalist probably meant too, so your position rather sounds like an attack on a strawman.
toss1 8y ago
OK, for the sake of discussion, let's say that you actually said "permanent irrevocable ban by the host of a major service" and not "block", which usually applies to users. The lack of appeal is indeed egregious. However, it is NOTHING like being killed / capital punishment. It is a ban from a single service, and nothing else in the world. If that service is such a large part of your life that you might as well be dead without it, you REALLY need to get a life. Mostly, I'd suggest putting more thought into your arguments, and being a bit more gracious when readers notice your lack of clarity or precision. I used to make those kind of arguments too, and I found that everything got better once I figured out it was a waste of time, and I was better off saying, 'oh, I didn't make that clear enough, here's what I meant to say..." Anyway, have a great weekend!
- busterarm 8y ago
  > However, it is NOTHING like being killed / capital punishment. It is a ban from a single service, and nothing else in the world. If that service is such a large part of your life that you might as well be dead without it, you REALLY need to get a life. So you acknowledge that I stated I wasn't making that comparison but you felt the need to state the same as everyone else anyway? > It is a ban from a single service, and nothing else in the world. If that service is such a large part of your life that you might as well be dead without it, you REALLY need to get a life. You do realize that there are certain businesses/industries that _entirely_ depend on your access to social media, right? In a great many cases, losing that access is losing your income stream with possibly no hope of recovery. The insidious part about that is that I'm not talking about people who make video content to be shared. If you work in Infosec, Twitter is your primary industry networking tool. It's literally required. If you buy and sell car parts, you are literally dependent on access to certain Facebook groups for customers and inventory. If you play Legacy format in Magic the Gathering or you're a card dealer? A lot of that business these days happens over Facebook. Most of you may not believe me when I say this, but it's the truth. And those are just the first three cases that I can think of that I have direct awareness of.

icebraining 8y ago

You're bringing up a person-to-person case that I have _three times now_ stated that I am not talking about. People are doing that because that's what "block" in the social media context usually means. Sites ban, users block. And that's what the journalist probably meant too, so your position rather sounds like an attack on a strawman.

toss1 8y ago

OK, for the sake of discussion, let's say that you actually said "permanent irrevocable ban by the host of a major service" and not "block", which usually applies to users. The lack of appeal is indeed egregious. However, it is NOTHING like being killed / capital punishment. It is a ban from a single service, and nothing else in the world. If that service is such a large part of your life that you might as well be dead without it, you REALLY need to get a life. Mostly, I'd suggest putting more thought into your arguments, and being a bit more gracious when readers notice your lack of clarity or precision. I used to make those kind of arguments too, and I found that everything got better once I figured out it was a waste of time, and I was better off saying, 'oh, I didn't make that clear enough, here's what I meant to say..." Anyway, have a great weekend!

busterarm 8y ago
> However, it is NOTHING like being killed / capital punishment. It is a ban from a single service, and nothing else in the world. If that service is such a large part of your life that you might as well be dead without it, you REALLY need to get a life. So you acknowledge that I stated I wasn't making that comparison but you felt the need to state the same as everyone else anyway? > It is a ban from a single service, and nothing else in the world. If that service is such a large part of your life that you might as well be dead without it, you REALLY need to get a life. You do realize that there are certain businesses/industries that _entirely_ depend on your access to social media, right? In a great many cases, losing that access is losing your income stream with possibly no hope of recovery. The insidious part about that is that I'm not talking about people who make video content to be shared. If you work in Infosec, Twitter is your primary industry networking tool. It's literally required. If you buy and sell car parts, you are literally dependent on access to certain Facebook groups for customers and inventory. If you play Legacy format in Magic the Gathering or you're a card dealer? A lot of that business these days happens over Facebook. Most of you may not believe me when I say this, but it's the truth. And those are just the first three cases that I can think of that I have direct awareness of.