3 ms·
Every change breaks someone's workflow ... The only effective way I've found to stop seeing stuff from people I dgaf in my feed was to block them. I was even
by moralestapia 2y ago
Every change breaks someone's workflow ...
The only effective way I've found to stop seeing stuff from people I dgaf in my feed was to block them.
I was even considering creating a Github repo. with all the usernames I've been selecting out for years, so that people could easily de-shittify their Twitter feed.
The set includes (excludes?):
* the most prominent accounts that post political content; no partisan bias, they're all gone for me
* most major news accounts, including anyone that regularly posts any kind of content related to any side of any war, ever
* "science influencers" where the "science" are actually ads or some deranged guy screaming while wearing a lab coat
* Ian Miles Cheong and the Krassenstein Brothers
* hundreds of e-whores
* hundreds of "I made 1 million dollars last week" accounts
* ... and many more
gg to that
- barbazoo 2y ago> The only effective way I've found to stop seeing stuff from people I dgaf in my feed was to block them. Do you see people's posts even if you don't follow them?
- moralestapia 2y agoYes. All the time. My "For you" page is ~95% the things described above and only ~5% things related to the accounts I follow.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y agoMuch of the worsening of Twitter is centered around them deciding what you should see in order to maximize outrage, engagement, revenue. This means that in the replies to a tweet, for example, they can now rank highly all the spam and culture war bullshit that people have previously blocked.
- willy_k 2y agoIt doesn’t mean that, it means all the bullshit that people have blocked can now see their tweets.
- scarlehoff 2y agoYou will still not see them. If I understood correctly, the change here is that now those hundreds of e-whores and Ian Miles Cheong will be able to see your posts. So blocking is still the right strategy for what you want (for now).