3 ms·
To be fair, if you don't even have an account, I wouldn't want you freely combing through everything I've ever posted or commented on for all history either. O
by ksaj 5y ago
To be fair, if you don't even have an account, I wouldn't want you freely combing through everything I've ever posted or commented on for all history either.
One-way communications are not what motivates people to post anything. I would compare it to actively listening in to other people's conversations at a restaurant. Could be done, but that's not the motivation for having conversations at restaurants.
- jevoten 5y agoAnd yet Twitter waited until after it got hundreds of millions of users to start limiting visibility. I wonder if it would have gotten so popular if it worked this way from the start? Along with the mandatory phone-number to sign-up (that they still aren't up-front about, letting you sign-up and then auto-locking your account until you provide your phone). If this restriction was out of concern for their users, they'd let them toggle it.
- ksaj 5y agoYes, I agree with that - it should be a user toggle instead of a "walled garden" automagically applied to everyone. Especially after it was determined that posts from the president are Presidential communications, which by default (legally) are public. That suggests you shouldn't have to log in to read everything current and past public servants have posted. The phone thing is a different issue - one that I've noticed on a lot of other sites. It's always under the guise of 2FA, even if you don't enable that. It's an obvious data grab.
- jevoten 5y ago> The phone thing is a different issue It's a different manifestation of the same issue - bait & switch. Get popular, then implement user-hostile features.