3 ms·

> I feel like we often complain about companies making money via ads and that we should pay for what we use, and yet when a company tries to do exactly that we

> I feel like we often complain about companies making money via ads and that we should pay for what we use, and yet when a company tries to do exactly that we turn against it? thinking about it, it seems like Musk switched from selling advertising to companies to selling advertising to users (promoting their posts) > Why does this need a plugin to go this far when if you see it you can just block them yourself. it's a lot of work, tbh. I tried it

nerdjon 3y ago
> it's a lot of work, tbh. I tried it. To block a user? It really isn't, it's in the dropdown on a users profile. It takes a couple clicks. Unless you mean to block every blue checkmark which goes back to my question about why react in this manner. Why make a judgement call based on something arbitrary instead of the actual content of what someone posts. To be clear, I don't necessarily equate this with a political ideology. I personally have blocked a lot of republicans and transphobic people because I don't want to see that shit. Sure a lot of them have had the blue checkmark but not all of them and I just can't imagine actually saying let's block something that in reality has nothing to do with any of that.
- kitkat_new 3y ago
  > Why make a judgement call based on something arbitrary instead of the actual content of what someone posts. except it isn't arbitrary - for the reasoning check out the replies to the following comment (to which I don't really feel like I have to add anything): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37448531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37448531
  - nerdjon 3y ago
    ok so there are bad actors, that doesn't mean all of them are. Paying for a subscription isn't like voting for a particular party or supporting a certain candidate. Or are you going to tell me that Bill Gates and Barack Obama should be blocked?
    - kitkat_new 3y ago
      I am not saying that all of them are bad actors, but most of them aren't good enough to be worth an exception respectively accepting the trade-off, could probably count them with my fingers
      - nerdjon 3y ago
        That's the thing, that's basically what this plugin and people here seem to be saying. This is trying to make a blanket statement that we don't know wether or not it is true. We have limited information because we see the extremes when those could very well be in the minority of all of the subscribers. Considering it is very easy to find 2 very high profile accounts that would fall outside of this narrative means this should be more objectively looked at instead of with a gut reaction to this. Which again is why I go back to individual blocking (or maybe block lists based on actual bad behavior) but considering the easy to find examples of who would be caught up in this it makes no sense. And again I will point out that all this is doing is incentivizing Twitter to get rid of the blocking capability which is just going to allow more actual abuse to happen on the platform from people that were actually blocked in the past. Elon has already tweeted about saying that blocking is not a good solution, so I would not be surprised if that is removed soon if these campaigns grow.
        kitkat_new 3y ago
        I have done manual blocking, but it turned out, I'd pretty much block pretty much everyone anyways and since manual blocking consumes a lot of time, I use this plug in. I feel like you overestimate the risk of false positives for me, and put too much weight on bad behavior only. Just having their post being shoved into me, because they paid for that, is enough for me. btw. people with blue checkmarks which I follow aren't blocked
        Volundr 3y ago
        Not every user of Quora or Slashdot post trash, but the signal to noise ratio is high enough I don't use either of those sites. Yes it means I undoubtedly miss out on some really informative content, but it's not worth the work of sifting through the trash to find it. I don't have a Twitter account, but it seems very reasonable that for some people blue checkmark could have the same problem, blocking them all might mean missing out on some good content, but not enough to make it worth shifting through the garbage, especially since Twitter will happily promote any paying user's post. If someone has to block hundreds of people to let the good one or two through, it probably makes more sense to just give up on the few good ones or make exceptions for them.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Why make a judgement call based on something arbitrary instead of the actual content of what someone posts. It's not arbitrary, arbitrary would be on whether the checksum of their last n posts was odd or even. Twitter Blue membership is a social and economic signal, and for people who want to use this extension the signal carries more weight than the content of the posts. Many perceive Twitter Blue users as being primarily motivated by marketing, scamming, trolling, or fanboyism, and paying money for the service to increase reach and influence for social activity that would otherwise languish in obscurity because it is low in quality. In general one would like to judge social media posts by content, but that assumes a base standard of good faith and neutral market conditions. In a corrupted market, it's unwise to rely on such assumptions and rational to be distrustful of behavioral signals that correlate with previous negative experience.
  - scrumlord 3y ago
    [dead]
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Any popular post will have _hundreds_ of inane responses from blueticks, all shoved to the top. Blocking them individually is hardly realistic.

nerdjon 3y ago

> it's a lot of work, tbh. I tried it. To block a user? It really isn't, it's in the dropdown on a users profile. It takes a couple clicks. Unless you mean to block every blue checkmark which goes back to my question about why react in this manner. Why make a judgement call based on something arbitrary instead of the actual content of what someone posts. To be clear, I don't necessarily equate this with a political ideology. I personally have blocked a lot of republicans and transphobic people because I don't want to see that shit. Sure a lot of them have had the blue checkmark but not all of them and I just can't imagine actually saying let's block something that in reality has nothing to do with any of that.

kitkat_new 3y ago
> Why make a judgement call based on something arbitrary instead of the actual content of what someone posts. except it isn't arbitrary - for the reasoning check out the replies to the following comment (to which I don't really feel like I have to add anything): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37448531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37448531
- nerdjon 3y ago
  ok so there are bad actors, that doesn't mean all of them are. Paying for a subscription isn't like voting for a particular party or supporting a certain candidate. Or are you going to tell me that Bill Gates and Barack Obama should be blocked?
  - kitkat_new 3y ago
    I am not saying that all of them are bad actors, but most of them aren't good enough to be worth an exception respectively accepting the trade-off, could probably count them with my fingers
    - nerdjon 3y ago
      That's the thing, that's basically what this plugin and people here seem to be saying. This is trying to make a blanket statement that we don't know wether or not it is true. We have limited information because we see the extremes when those could very well be in the minority of all of the subscribers. Considering it is very easy to find 2 very high profile accounts that would fall outside of this narrative means this should be more objectively looked at instead of with a gut reaction to this. Which again is why I go back to individual blocking (or maybe block lists based on actual bad behavior) but considering the easy to find examples of who would be caught up in this it makes no sense. And again I will point out that all this is doing is incentivizing Twitter to get rid of the blocking capability which is just going to allow more actual abuse to happen on the platform from people that were actually blocked in the past. Elon has already tweeted about saying that blocking is not a good solution, so I would not be surprised if that is removed soon if these campaigns grow.
      - kitkat_new 3y ago
        I have done manual blocking, but it turned out, I'd pretty much block pretty much everyone anyways and since manual blocking consumes a lot of time, I use this plug in. I feel like you overestimate the risk of false positives for me, and put too much weight on bad behavior only. Just having their post being shoved into me, because they paid for that, is enough for me. btw. people with blue checkmarks which I follow aren't blocked
      - Volundr 3y ago
        Not every user of Quora or Slashdot post trash, but the signal to noise ratio is high enough I don't use either of those sites. Yes it means I undoubtedly miss out on some really informative content, but it's not worth the work of sifting through the trash to find it. I don't have a Twitter account, but it seems very reasonable that for some people blue checkmark could have the same problem, blocking them all might mean missing out on some good content, but not enough to make it worth shifting through the garbage, especially since Twitter will happily promote any paying user's post. If someone has to block hundreds of people to let the good one or two through, it probably makes more sense to just give up on the few good ones or make exceptions for them.
anigbrowl 3y ago
Why make a judgement call based on something arbitrary instead of the actual content of what someone posts. It's not arbitrary, arbitrary would be on whether the checksum of their last n posts was odd or even. Twitter Blue membership is a social and economic signal, and for people who want to use this extension the signal carries more weight than the content of the posts. Many perceive Twitter Blue users as being primarily motivated by marketing, scamming, trolling, or fanboyism, and paying money for the service to increase reach and influence for social activity that would otherwise languish in obscurity because it is low in quality. In general one would like to judge social media posts by content, but that assumes a base standard of good faith and neutral market conditions. In a corrupted market, it's unwise to rely on such assumptions and rational to be distrustful of behavioral signals that correlate with previous negative experience.
- scrumlord 3y ago
  [dead]
rsynnott 3y ago
Any popular post will have _hundreds_ of inane responses from blueticks, all shoved to the top. Blocking them individually is hardly realistic.