5 ms·

I don't understand how this gives harassers the upper hand. If you can't see their messages any more doesn't that remove the harassment? I've seen multiple peop

I don't understand how this gives harassers the upper hand. If you can't see their messages any more doesn't that remove the harassment? I've seen multiple people say this today but I don't understand it. I've also never been outright harassed on Twitter so I'm sure there's something I'm missing.

steveklabnik 13y ago
For one thing, since Twitter capitulated to them in this regard, it means that they should continue their bad behaviours, because it will cause Twitter to change their policies.
- rjknight 13y ago
  I think that's a rather 'meta' example. A better one would be that if someone can reply to your tweets or mention your username, they can make it appear that you're (rudely) refusing to engage them in legitimate conversation. Or they can retweet you, followed by a series of their own tweets ridiculing you. I'm sure there are more creative ideas than this. One might argue that any harm done here is outweighed by the fact that the target of the harassment won't be able to see any of it, and I find that argument reasonably persuasive. It seems that Twitter's decision has been taken in order to make blocking a 'silent' or 'invisible' action, such that the person being blocked cannot know that they're blocked. Their calculation seems to be that harm is reduced this way, because it introduces an asymmetry of information in favour of the person doing the blocking - they know who they have blocked, but the person they've blocked does not. To call that 'capitulation' is not an accurate reading of the situation, in my view.
zem 13y ago
they can now retweet your stuff and get their followers to mob you
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- eropple 13y ago
  They could still post a link before. Or, IIRC (may be wrong), RT from another account and RT that.
  - zem 13y ago
    yes, but the more tedious the ux made it to do so, the fewer people would do it
    - eropple 13y ago
      I'm skeptical of this claim. I don't think that someone bound and determined to be this kind of an asshole would really be stopped by that. (edit: I want to stress that I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it seems rather counter-intuitive.)
      - zem 13y ago
        think of it as a set of effort versus determination curves. every time you shift the effort curve a bunch of less-determined jerks give up. on the other hand if you shift the curve the other way and jerkery becomes as easy as pressing a button, a lot more people will give in to the casual impulse to do son.
        eropple 13y ago
        Yeah, I get that. I'm just skeptical that it moves it much. Personally, I liked the change; I'd like to be able to block annoying people who nevertheless RT my stuff.
- mikecane 13y ago
  Exactly so. They're now allowing the harassment to continue but unseen. I don't think people here have a thorough understanding of the naked hatred some people espouse on Twitter towards individuals. I'm constantly shocked at the abuse women I Follow get that they then RT to display it for others to see. Why don't some of you who don't think this is a big deal set up an account as a woman and start doing some pro-women tweeting? Your eyes might be opened very quickly. I'm a guy and I've had people -- OK, mainly other guys -- display sick stalking and Blocking was the way to put a stop to that. They didn't have the time or energy to manually copy/paste my tweets to keep it going. Now they don't even have that friction to deal with. They can harass people behind their back. Protecting an account has a penalty -- your tweets can't be RTed by Followers. This is the punishment of the innocent and the liberation of the guilty.

steveklabnik 13y ago

For one thing, since Twitter capitulated to them in this regard, it means that they should continue their bad behaviours, because it will cause Twitter to change their policies.

rjknight 13y ago
I think that's a rather 'meta' example. A better one would be that if someone can reply to your tweets or mention your username, they can make it appear that you're (rudely) refusing to engage them in legitimate conversation. Or they can retweet you, followed by a series of their own tweets ridiculing you. I'm sure there are more creative ideas than this. One might argue that any harm done here is outweighed by the fact that the target of the harassment won't be able to see any of it, and I find that argument reasonably persuasive. It seems that Twitter's decision has been taken in order to make blocking a 'silent' or 'invisible' action, such that the person being blocked cannot know that they're blocked. Their calculation seems to be that harm is reduced this way, because it introduces an asymmetry of information in favour of the person doing the blocking - they know who they have blocked, but the person they've blocked does not. To call that 'capitulation' is not an accurate reading of the situation, in my view.

zem 13y ago

they can now retweet your stuff and get their followers to mob you

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
eropple 13y ago
They could still post a link before. Or, IIRC (may be wrong), RT from another account and RT that.
- zem 13y ago
  yes, but the more tedious the ux made it to do so, the fewer people would do it
  - eropple 13y ago
    I'm skeptical of this claim. I don't think that someone bound and determined to be this kind of an asshole would really be stopped by that. (edit: I want to stress that I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it seems rather counter-intuitive.)
    - zem 13y ago
      think of it as a set of effort versus determination curves. every time you shift the effort curve a bunch of less-determined jerks give up. on the other hand if you shift the curve the other way and jerkery becomes as easy as pressing a button, a lot more people will give in to the casual impulse to do son.
      - eropple 13y ago
        Yeah, I get that. I'm just skeptical that it moves it much. Personally, I liked the change; I'd like to be able to block annoying people who nevertheless RT my stuff.
mikecane 13y ago
Exactly so. They're now allowing the harassment to continue but unseen. I don't think people here have a thorough understanding of the naked hatred some people espouse on Twitter towards individuals. I'm constantly shocked at the abuse women I Follow get that they then RT to display it for others to see. Why don't some of you who don't think this is a big deal set up an account as a woman and start doing some pro-women tweeting? Your eyes might be opened very quickly. I'm a guy and I've had people -- OK, mainly other guys -- display sick stalking and Blocking was the way to put a stop to that. They didn't have the time or energy to manually copy/paste my tweets to keep it going. Now they don't even have that friction to deal with. They can harass people behind their back. Protecting an account has a penalty -- your tweets can't be RTed by Followers. This is the punishment of the innocent and the liberation of the guilty.