4 ms·

Musk is right on this one. It wasn’t serving any real purpose to let me selectively block other people from _seeing_ my posts (but _interacting_ does make sense

Musk is right on this one. It wasn’t serving any real purpose to let me selectively block other people from _seeing_ my posts (but _interacting_ does make sense). If I genuinely don’t want someone to see my posts, I just can’t put it on Twitter/X unless I have a private profile (is that still a thing?). Otherwise, it’s a public platform, in that anyone can register with little more than an email address and see my posts. Claiming to block someone from seeing them seems like it provides a false sense of security to users.

Kye 2y ago
Twitter itself recognized there are levels of public early on. The original site was every post in one timeline. The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event. The phrase context collapse came about and persists for a reason. A blocked person has been kicked out of the public local to the poster and their followers. It doesn't make sense for them to be able to continue to act like they're in the space, but just not speaking. The fact that someone can violate the rules and norms of a space doesn't mean you don't have rules and norms.
- heraldgeezer 2y ago
  >The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event. Not what Twitter was or is? You have misunderstood the site like a Facebook timeline boomer poster. "uuoooh people can see this!!!" Yes. Twitter is not your own IRC server. But seeing as it started with MacBook Starbucks hipsters, I am not surprised they just made something up in their minds and rolled with it.
- bensecure 2y ago
  "Can be seen by anyone in the world except for tom because fuck tom" isn't a different "level of public", it's just caprice. As the GP mentioned, if you want to restrict who can see your tweets, set your account to private.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Maybe caprice except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment. I mean this is the obvious example, there are others. In that case "make your profile private if you dont want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment Super low-effort harassment, where the harasser can't bother creating a new Twitter account.
      - JohnMakin 2y ago
        It’s an additional barrier. It also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through. And if it’s so easy, why the need for this new “feature” to begin with?
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through The harasser can view from their new accounts and respond on their main account. Unless someone is very tightly curating their follower list, at which point it doesn't make sense for them to be publicly tweeting, there would be no indication which account was responsible. The problem in harassment is the harassment. Not the harasser's access to the public domain.
        JohnMakin 2y ago
        Again, then why the need for this feature if it is so easy to get around a block? A harasser can do many things, but removing a barrier for the person being harassed to mitigate it because… reasons feels very odd to me. Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?
- bgirard 2y ago
  I agree if getting a seat at the table requires some vetting, but if something is being shouted publicly into a megaphone your analogy doesn't work. If something is so public that a logged out user can see it, it's weird of a logged in account to not see it.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  > The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event. But that's not what Twitter/X is, it's more akin to standing in an open access field with a megaphone. You have no right to say who should be in the field or not, and if you don't want someone to hear something, the best thing to do is not say it in the field in the first place.
- Arnt 2y ago
  It's bad UX. Telling people that blocked users can't see your posts mislead them, because all that's needed for as blocked user is to open a window in incognito mode. Good user interfaces don't tell users things that are far from true. Even if we all wish the things could be true.
- nailer 2y ago
  Not being able to see someone else’s tweets until you made a different account was always security theatre.
tadfisher 2y ago
How can I keep Musk's posts from showing up in my feed if blocking doesn't hide them? I think that's the real motivation, actually.
- dotnet00 2y ago
  You can still mute his account. That has always been an option, and that is not changing with this.
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- rogerrogerr 2y ago
  The change here is that blocking Musk no longer makes it so _he_ can’t see _your_ posts while he’s logged in.

Kye 2y ago

Twitter itself recognized there are levels of public early on. The original site was every post in one timeline. The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event. The phrase context collapse came about and persists for a reason. A blocked person has been kicked out of the public local to the poster and their followers. It doesn't make sense for them to be able to continue to act like they're in the space, but just not speaking. The fact that someone can violate the rules and norms of a space doesn't mean you don't have rules and norms.

heraldgeezer 2y ago
>The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event. Not what Twitter was or is? You have misunderstood the site like a Facebook timeline boomer poster. "uuoooh people can see this!!!" Yes. Twitter is not your own IRC server. But seeing as it started with MacBook Starbucks hipsters, I am not surprised they just made something up in their minds and rolled with it.
bensecure 2y ago
"Can be seen by anyone in the world except for tom because fuck tom" isn't a different "level of public", it's just caprice. As the GP mentioned, if you want to restrict who can see your tweets, set your account to private.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  Maybe caprice except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment. I mean this is the obvious example, there are others. In that case "make your profile private if you dont want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > except in the exceedingly common instances where someone is the target of harassment Super low-effort harassment, where the harasser can't bother creating a new Twitter account.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      It’s an additional barrier. It also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through. And if it’s so easy, why the need for this new “feature” to begin with?
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > also provides the blocking user the ability to block the new account. This isn’t very difficult to think through The harasser can view from their new accounts and respond on their main account. Unless someone is very tightly curating their follower list, at which point it doesn't make sense for them to be publicly tweeting, there would be no indication which account was responsible. The problem in harassment is the harassment. Not the harasser's access to the public domain.
        JohnMakin 2y ago
        Again, then why the need for this feature if it is so easy to get around a block? A harasser can do many things, but removing a barrier for the person being harassed to mitigate it because… reasons feels very odd to me. Can you explain what this new feature provides legitimate users that doesn’t already exist?
bgirard 2y ago
I agree if getting a seat at the table requires some vetting, but if something is being shouted publicly into a megaphone your analogy doesn't work. If something is so public that a logged out user can see it, it's weird of a logged in account to not see it.
ChocolateGod 2y ago
> The things I say to a room or to people at a table are not meant for everyone at the event. But that's not what Twitter/X is, it's more akin to standing in an open access field with a megaphone. You have no right to say who should be in the field or not, and if you don't want someone to hear something, the best thing to do is not say it in the field in the first place.
Arnt 2y ago
It's bad UX. Telling people that blocked users can't see your posts mislead them, because all that's needed for as blocked user is to open a window in incognito mode. Good user interfaces don't tell users things that are far from true. Even if we all wish the things could be true.
nailer 2y ago
Not being able to see someone else’s tweets until you made a different account was always security theatre.

tadfisher 2y ago

How can I keep Musk's posts from showing up in my feed if blocking doesn't hide them? I think that's the real motivation, actually.

dotnet00 2y ago
You can still mute his account. That has always been an option, and that is not changing with this.
decremental 2y ago
[dead]
rogerrogerr 2y ago
The change here is that blocking Musk no longer makes it so _he_ can’t see _your_ posts while he’s logged in.