4 ms·

This seems to be an extremely silly upheaval. I don't use twitter, so maybe I didn't understand it correctly, but isn't it what "blocking" used to mean on all p

by krick 2y ago

This seems to be an extremely silly upheaval. I don't use twitter, so maybe I didn't understand it correctly, but isn't it what "blocking" used to mean on all platforms ever? And what the word "public" meant in all contexts ever? Like, I'm blocking you so you stop bothering me, but it doesn't mean you will somehow automatically stop seeing my public posts. Of course you'll see them. They are public, goddamit. Even if a platform implements some cheesy sort of shadowbanning to stop showing them to you, you can just log out (delete cookies or whatever), and see them, because literally anybody can see them. They are PUBLIC, what isn't clear about it?

krapp 2y ago
You seem to be under the impression that there is a single, objective, universally agreed upon and understood definition of "public" in the context of social media platforms, as well as for "blocking," which all platforms have hitherto implemented and enforced in the same manner, with the same expectations and behaviors. This is not in fact the case, even if you put it in all caps. What "public" and "blocking" mean are implementation and terms of service dependent, they aren't legally binding terms of art.
- fwn 2y ago
  While I personally think there is a universally agreed upon idea of public access (as in non-exclusive), I was thinking about how other platforms handle it, and Facebook, AFAIK, seemed to have moved to the "everyone" category at some point. Not sure about other platforms. With "everyone", you could also think of it as everyone [on the platform], which would be a subset of "public".
jrflowers 2y ago
> They are PUBLIC, what isn't clear about it? I like the idea that people are upset because they are dumb and categorically misunderstand the word “public” rather than some users find making a quality of life UX adjustment specifically for blocked users to be weird and off putting. A novice might ask whose user experience is improved by this change and in what ways, but a wise man knows to ask what intellectual failure has led to the presence of more than one opinion about how a popular website functions
- sunaookami 2y ago
  >I like the idea that people are upset because they are dumb and categorically misunderstand the word “public” because that IS the reason. You can even see it here in the comments that a lot of people misunderstand that blocking never prevented the blocked person from seeing your posts.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    > because that IS the reason Did you read the rest of the sentence that you quoted? > blocking never prevented the blocked person from seeing your posts This is fascinating. It only stopped users that didn’t use alts or didn’t bother to open a browser in incognito mode and copy-paste the url to a user’s posts. Do you think that the Venn diagram of “people that have been blocked by any user for any reason” and “people that use alts, clears out cookies, and/or opens incognito mode windows and copy-pastes URLs into said browser window to get around blocks” is a circle? If your point is that from the perspective of someone intent on circumventing a block there is no difference between being blocked and not, then you either seem to believe everyone shares that motivation, or you don’t believe that user behavior is ever impacted by mild inconvenience or friction. If it is the former, “everybody acts like a troll” is more of a personal opinion to reflect on than something useful for discussion, and if it is the latter then you have taken your time to go out of your way to share that you have never once designed anything for user interaction, which again isn’t useful for discussion. Anyway, in your opinion whose user experience is improved by this change and in what ways?

by krick 2y ago

krapp 2y ago

You seem to be under the impression that there is a single, objective, universally agreed upon and understood definition of "public" in the context of social media platforms, as well as for "blocking," which all platforms have hitherto implemented and enforced in the same manner, with the same expectations and behaviors. This is not in fact the case, even if you put it in all caps. What "public" and "blocking" mean are implementation and terms of service dependent, they aren't legally binding terms of art.

fwn 2y ago
While I personally think there is a universally agreed upon idea of public access (as in non-exclusive), I was thinking about how other platforms handle it, and Facebook, AFAIK, seemed to have moved to the "everyone" category at some point. Not sure about other platforms. With "everyone", you could also think of it as everyone [on the platform], which would be a subset of "public".

jrflowers 2y ago

> They are PUBLIC, what isn't clear about it? I like the idea that people are upset because they are dumb and categorically misunderstand the word “public” rather than some users find making a quality of life UX adjustment specifically for blocked users to be weird and off putting. A novice might ask whose user experience is improved by this change and in what ways, but a wise man knows to ask what intellectual failure has led to the presence of more than one opinion about how a popular website functions

sunaookami 2y ago
>I like the idea that people are upset because they are dumb and categorically misunderstand the word “public” because that IS the reason. You can even see it here in the comments that a lot of people misunderstand that blocking never prevented the blocked person from seeing your posts.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  > because that IS the reason Did you read the rest of the sentence that you quoted? > blocking never prevented the blocked person from seeing your posts This is fascinating. It only stopped users that didn’t use alts or didn’t bother to open a browser in incognito mode and copy-paste the url to a user’s posts. Do you think that the Venn diagram of “people that have been blocked by any user for any reason” and “people that use alts, clears out cookies, and/or opens incognito mode windows and copy-pastes URLs into said browser window to get around blocks” is a circle? If your point is that from the perspective of someone intent on circumventing a block there is no difference between being blocked and not, then you either seem to believe everyone shares that motivation, or you don’t believe that user behavior is ever impacted by mild inconvenience or friction. If it is the former, “everybody acts like a troll” is more of a personal opinion to reflect on than something useful for discussion, and if it is the latter then you have taken your time to go out of your way to share that you have never once designed anything for user interaction, which again isn’t useful for discussion. Anyway, in your opinion whose user experience is improved by this change and in what ways?