4 ms·

> just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your incl

> just because you happened to follow somebody who was controversial or deemed controversial. Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. If you don't like it, join a platform where such an entitlement exists. > appear as though it never existed Nobody is confused about whether the dissent exists. Similarly, nobody has forgotten that creationists exist. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain.

angersock 12y ago
Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. The point is that, even if I only ever tweeted about sandwiches, these tools will effectively silence me because of my association. And your solution that I remove myself and appeal my ban, caused just because someobdy found one of the people I follow offensive? That solution is exactly the sort of thing that violates my right to freedom of association and that makes everyone proposing that solution look closed-minded. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain. One could make the exact argument about any number of things, and it would sound just as close-minded. I'm not defending the abuse and death threats and whatnot, mind you, but you aren't winning any prizes for "most tolerant of other ideas". I understand the reasoning, I understand with where it's coming from, but
- Frondo 12y ago
  Twitter is a private service. You have no right to compel a private company to let you do anything with that service. And more than that, Twitter itself isn't maintaining the blocklists. The people who want to use blocklists are. Freedom of assocation has never meant, "I get to walk into -your- meeting and do whatever I want." It means you can set up your own meeting. You can't force your way into the blocklist users' field of view, and while that may be personally frustrating for you, it is entirely within the entire world's right to ignore you if the entire world chooses.
  - angersock 12y ago
    I'm not making any claims about what Twitter has the right to do--it's obvious these are third-party tools. So, again, I'm not saying "I want to force myself on other people". I'm also not saying "These people are terrible for using blocklists". I'm not saying "The world needs more rape and death threats". I'm not saying "The world must not allow some user to be ignored, ever ever ever". Very specifically, and all together now, I'm saying: "These blocklists allow people who have no other sin than an edge connecting them with somebody on the banlist to be blocked in turn, and they'll never know about it unless they actively seek it out, and they are effectively being punished in discovery rates because of something somebody else did. That they must renounce that edge is unfortunate, and that the attitude that this is okay if they refuse to remove the edge regardless of other facts (i.e., they are tweeting great on tech, but they follow XYZ even without ever commenting on those topics, so shhhhuuuuuun) is backwards." Whether

angersock 12y ago

Presumably you'd either unfollow that person and appeal your inclusion on the list, or else get over it. You are not entitled to push your thoughts to someone else's feed if they don't want to hear you. The point is that, even if I only ever tweeted about sandwiches, these tools will effectively silence me because of my association. And your solution that I remove myself and appeal my ban, caused just because someobdy found one of the people I follow offensive? That solution is exactly the sort of thing that violates my right to freedom of association and that makes everyone proposing that solution look closed-minded. The question is whether hearing the dissent is useful. It isn't, and for some it causes anything from annoyance to pain. One could make the exact argument about any number of things, and it would sound just as close-minded. I'm not defending the abuse and death threats and whatnot, mind you, but you aren't winning any prizes for "most tolerant of other ideas". I understand the reasoning, I understand with where it's coming from, but

Frondo 12y ago
Twitter is a private service. You have no right to compel a private company to let you do anything with that service. And more than that, Twitter itself isn't maintaining the blocklists. The people who want to use blocklists are. Freedom of assocation has never meant, "I get to walk into -your- meeting and do whatever I want." It means you can set up your own meeting. You can't force your way into the blocklist users' field of view, and while that may be personally frustrating for you, it is entirely within the entire world's right to ignore you if the entire world chooses.
- angersock 12y ago
  I'm not making any claims about what Twitter has the right to do--it's obvious these are third-party tools. So, again, I'm not saying "I want to force myself on other people". I'm also not saying "These people are terrible for using blocklists". I'm not saying "The world needs more rape and death threats". I'm not saying "The world must not allow some user to be ignored, ever ever ever". Very specifically, and all together now, I'm saying: "These blocklists allow people who have no other sin than an edge connecting them with somebody on the banlist to be blocked in turn, and they'll never know about it unless they actively seek it out, and they are effectively being punished in discovery rates because of something somebody else did. That they must renounce that edge is unfortunate, and that the attitude that this is okay if they refuse to remove the edge regardless of other facts (i.e., they are tweeting great on tech, but they follow XYZ even without ever commenting on those topics, so shhhhuuuuuun) is backwards." Whether