4 ms·

It says a lot about the HN community that the overwhelming majority of people here seemingly emphasize with the person being blocked rather than the person doin

by slg 2y ago

It says a lot about the HN community that the overwhelming majority of people here seemingly emphasize with the person being blocked rather than the person doing the blocking.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bugtodiffer 2y ago
I do not side with the person who has been blocked, but it is very obvious to me that nothing in the world would prevent them from seeing my public posts
- isodev 2y ago
  Why? For me it's the opposite. "Public" is a label for a specific type of audience - everyone with access to my feed/timeline (as opposed to a subset like friends, followers etc). If I block someone, they no longer have access to my timeline.
  - franciscop 2y ago
    In twitter "public" is not a label for a specific type of audience, it's the name of common use of a work being public/generally shared with the world. The feed/timeline you are referring sounds awfully similar to Facebook/Instagram/etc which are notorious for being walled gardens where what you say it's true.
    - isodev 2y ago
      I wasn't thinking of Meta's products, just how social networks are supposed to work. Leon trying to tweak things is just not acceptable (not to mention dangerous... blocking is there for a reason).
      - franciscop 2y ago
        Who is Leon? Twitter was from the beginning a "micro-publishing platform", more akin to a newspapper with subscribers than to other social networks like Facebook.
  - bugtodiffer 2y ago
    Okay, but you are aware that "public" means everyone? e.g. the blocked persons friend or frankly second account? What you want is a list of friends that you share your posts too, but then you wouldn't need social media if you weren't talking to strangers. > If I block someone, they no longer have access to my timeline. Yeah and I instantly think "what if they create a new account" and your whole protection instantly fails. Blocking is barely good enough so famous accounts dont publicly mock you with all of their followers.
isodev 2y ago
Indeed, blocking means blocking and the person posting content must have the tools to curate who can access their content. This is not just me saying it because it sounds logical, it's also a requirement for platforms with user generated content for various app stores, the DSA in the EU etc.
virgilp 2y ago
It says that the HN community is more rational than most? It's not about empathy, it's about common sense - you can't prevent someone from seeing your PUBLIC posts just by blocking their account... at most you can make it slightly more inconvenient.
- slg 2y ago
  A block function is the online equivalent of a restraining order. Imagine telling a victim of abuse that restraining orders aren’t rational. It doesn’t have to be foolproof to provide a real benefit.
  - beaglesss 2y ago
    Restraining orders convey dubious benefits and arguably produce more harm than good.
    - slg 2y ago
      This just feels like a statement made without empathy for why people might seek a restraining order (side note: I hate that empathize/emphasize auto correct in my first comment, but it is too late to edit it). If they truly did more harm than good from the perspective of the people seeking the restraining order, people obviously wouldn’t pursue them. So your opinion seems to be from the perspective of the target of the restraining order.
      - beaglesss 2y ago
        The people seeking the restraining order are victims as well, sold a lie by the justice system and lawyers. Almost anything bad a restraining order seeker is trying to prevent is already illegal. Meanwhile loads of innocent people have their civil rights stripped such as right to bear arms without even a jury trial, and often after same order evicts them from their own house.
        slg 2y ago
xzjis 2y ago
Yes, and yet it's surprising because blocked people can trigger or contribute to the harassment of a Twitter user. The frequently opposed argument, including by Elon Musk himself, that a user can see posts in private browsing, doesn't hold water in my opinion. 1- Because not displaying them in the newsfeed or replies statistically reduces the chances of knowing that the post exists. 2- Because one would really have to be determined to look up a person who has blocked them on Twitter and regularly check their posts. 3- Because Twitter GREATLY limits the number of tweets visible in private browsing (without being logged in), displaying the most viewed posts first, not the most recent ones. This makes it almost impossible for a blocked user to actually view the latest tweets of their blocker. I'm not so sure that Elon Musk made the right decision.
tuhriel 2y ago
I see what you are suggesting here, I see the same trend but I think the reason why is not the one you are implying. The HN community, in most topics, is against censoring, echo chambers and that free speech doesn't mean you can say anything without being called out. IMHO there are two impacted groups here: a) the ones who block everything and everyone that doesn't agree with them (on a public platform) b) the ones who are harassed and stalked and need to use the block as a defense the change is bad for people in group b) - which most people can agree on. The problem with blocking is, it doesn't solve the problem (it's the equivalent of the EU's great idea of DNS blocking). There should be a system in place that actual (online) harassment can be legally pursued and prevented. against group a), I think the change is a net-positive
- slg 2y ago
  > The problem with blocking is, it doesn't solve the problem You’re right it doesn’t solve the problem, but the people who experience this problem say it helps and now those people are losing that help.

by slg 2y ago

It says a lot about the HN community that the overwhelming majority of people here seemingly emphasize with the person being blocked rather than the person doing the blocking.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

bugtodiffer 2y ago

I do not side with the person who has been blocked, but it is very obvious to me that nothing in the world would prevent them from seeing my public posts

isodev 2y ago
Why? For me it's the opposite. "Public" is a label for a specific type of audience - everyone with access to my feed/timeline (as opposed to a subset like friends, followers etc). If I block someone, they no longer have access to my timeline.
- franciscop 2y ago
  In twitter "public" is not a label for a specific type of audience, it's the name of common use of a work being public/generally shared with the world. The feed/timeline you are referring sounds awfully similar to Facebook/Instagram/etc which are notorious for being walled gardens where what you say it's true.
  - isodev 2y ago
    I wasn't thinking of Meta's products, just how social networks are supposed to work. Leon trying to tweak things is just not acceptable (not to mention dangerous... blocking is there for a reason).
    - franciscop 2y ago
      Who is Leon? Twitter was from the beginning a "micro-publishing platform", more akin to a newspapper with subscribers than to other social networks like Facebook.
- bugtodiffer 2y ago
  Okay, but you are aware that "public" means everyone? e.g. the blocked persons friend or frankly second account? What you want is a list of friends that you share your posts too, but then you wouldn't need social media if you weren't talking to strangers. > If I block someone, they no longer have access to my timeline. Yeah and I instantly think "what if they create a new account" and your whole protection instantly fails. Blocking is barely good enough so famous accounts dont publicly mock you with all of their followers.

isodev 2y ago

Indeed, blocking means blocking and the person posting content must have the tools to curate who can access their content. This is not just me saying it because it sounds logical, it's also a requirement for platforms with user generated content for various app stores, the DSA in the EU etc.

virgilp 2y ago

It says that the HN community is more rational than most? It's not about empathy, it's about common sense - you can't prevent someone from seeing your PUBLIC posts just by blocking their account... at most you can make it slightly more inconvenient.

slg 2y ago
A block function is the online equivalent of a restraining order. Imagine telling a victim of abuse that restraining orders aren’t rational. It doesn’t have to be foolproof to provide a real benefit.
- beaglesss 2y ago
  Restraining orders convey dubious benefits and arguably produce more harm than good.
  - slg 2y ago
    This just feels like a statement made without empathy for why people might seek a restraining order (side note: I hate that empathize/emphasize auto correct in my first comment, but it is too late to edit it). If they truly did more harm than good from the perspective of the people seeking the restraining order, people obviously wouldn’t pursue them. So your opinion seems to be from the perspective of the target of the restraining order.
    - beaglesss 2y ago
      The people seeking the restraining order are victims as well, sold a lie by the justice system and lawyers. Almost anything bad a restraining order seeker is trying to prevent is already illegal. Meanwhile loads of innocent people have their civil rights stripped such as right to bear arms without even a jury trial, and often after same order evicts them from their own house.
      - slg 2y ago

xzjis 2y ago

Yes, and yet it's surprising because blocked people can trigger or contribute to the harassment of a Twitter user. The frequently opposed argument, including by Elon Musk himself, that a user can see posts in private browsing, doesn't hold water in my opinion. 1- Because not displaying them in the newsfeed or replies statistically reduces the chances of knowing that the post exists. 2- Because one would really have to be determined to look up a person who has blocked them on Twitter and regularly check their posts. 3- Because Twitter GREATLY limits the number of tweets visible in private browsing (without being logged in), displaying the most viewed posts first, not the most recent ones. This makes it almost impossible for a blocked user to actually view the latest tweets of their blocker. I'm not so sure that Elon Musk made the right decision.

tuhriel 2y ago

I see what you are suggesting here, I see the same trend but I think the reason why is not the one you are implying. The HN community, in most topics, is against censoring, echo chambers and that free speech doesn't mean you can say anything without being called out. IMHO there are two impacted groups here: a) the ones who block everything and everyone that doesn't agree with them (on a public platform) b) the ones who are harassed and stalked and need to use the block as a defense the change is bad for people in group b) - which most people can agree on. The problem with blocking is, it doesn't solve the problem (it's the equivalent of the EU's great idea of DNS blocking). There should be a system in place that actual (online) harassment can be legally pursued and prevented. against group a), I think the change is a net-positive

slg 2y ago
> The problem with blocking is, it doesn't solve the problem You’re right it doesn’t solve the problem, but the people who experience this problem say it helps and now those people are losing that help.