3 ms·

Being able to block people from seeing publicly posted content was always stupid. Blocks should prevent people from engaging with you by replying to your posts

Being able to block people from seeing publicly posted content was always stupid. Blocks should prevent people from engaging with you by replying to your posts or messaging you directly. The fact that social media decided to utterly change what it means was just making echo chambers worse. If you want to shout out to people who agree with you already just send it to them directly.

EasyMark 2y ago
It really isn’t because “out of sight, out of mind” is really a thing and it gives stalkers/ragers time to calm down after they’ve been rejected. I mean you can always use a second account to read it, but I’m sure that many people moved on after being blocked which is huge plus for people being harassed by trolls and even scarier people .
- fwn 2y ago
  > it gives stalkers/ragers time to calm down after they’ve been rejected But afaik it's just right click -> open in private window to see the profile as the open internet would see it. Takes a second. It's the same on reddit. If someone replies to you and immediately blocks you (which is a bit of a funny pattern lately), you'd normally switch to logged out mode to read it. Mobile takes this into account as well: In RedReader (for reddit), you can just use the three dot menu to view it as a not registered user. I feel that giving users the ability to play around with this kind of hoops and tricks stirs up emotions instead of calming them down. In general: I don't know of a single scenario where it would be wise to create a situation where logging in on a platform reduces access to its content.
  - wlonkly 2y ago
    You can see someone's profile and top-engagement tweets logged out, but if you want to see anything recent or specific you need to be logged in, which means there's the friction of a second Twitter account, at least.
    - dogma1138 2y ago
      You shouldn’t be able to stand on a soapbox and tell certain people to cover their ears. Twitter allows you to send messages to your followers specifically, Facebook allows you to send it to your friends etc. Social media is bad enough already for public discourse and the way blocks work on it just made things worse. Reddit is arguably even worse, block is basically used to have the last word and the entire chain of comments is deleted only for you as others can continue to comment in it. The reason why social media did this is because they were lazy and didn’t want to take responsibility for policing their userbase. But this doesn’t make a better product. Places like Reddit shouldn’t allow you to block users at all other than from directly PMing you. If you don’t want to participate in a public debate don’t. There shouldn’t be a tool that would allow you to decide who else participates in it. I really don’t understand why this concept is so confusing to people this days.
- dogma1138 2y ago
  The content is public, you don’t need an account to even read it. This does nothing other than create echo chambers.

EasyMark 2y ago

It really isn’t because “out of sight, out of mind” is really a thing and it gives stalkers/ragers time to calm down after they’ve been rejected. I mean you can always use a second account to read it, but I’m sure that many people moved on after being blocked which is huge plus for people being harassed by trolls and even scarier people .

fwn 2y ago
> it gives stalkers/ragers time to calm down after they’ve been rejected But afaik it's just right click -> open in private window to see the profile as the open internet would see it. Takes a second. It's the same on reddit. If someone replies to you and immediately blocks you (which is a bit of a funny pattern lately), you'd normally switch to logged out mode to read it. Mobile takes this into account as well: In RedReader (for reddit), you can just use the three dot menu to view it as a not registered user. I feel that giving users the ability to play around with this kind of hoops and tricks stirs up emotions instead of calming them down. In general: I don't know of a single scenario where it would be wise to create a situation where logging in on a platform reduces access to its content.
- wlonkly 2y ago
  You can see someone's profile and top-engagement tweets logged out, but if you want to see anything recent or specific you need to be logged in, which means there's the friction of a second Twitter account, at least.
  - dogma1138 2y ago
    You shouldn’t be able to stand on a soapbox and tell certain people to cover their ears. Twitter allows you to send messages to your followers specifically, Facebook allows you to send it to your friends etc. Social media is bad enough already for public discourse and the way blocks work on it just made things worse. Reddit is arguably even worse, block is basically used to have the last word and the entire chain of comments is deleted only for you as others can continue to comment in it. The reason why social media did this is because they were lazy and didn’t want to take responsibility for policing their userbase. But this doesn’t make a better product. Places like Reddit shouldn’t allow you to block users at all other than from directly PMing you. If you don’t want to participate in a public debate don’t. There shouldn’t be a tool that would allow you to decide who else participates in it. I really don’t understand why this concept is so confusing to people this days.
dogma1138 2y ago
The content is public, you don’t need an account to even read it. This does nothing other than create echo chambers.