201–210 of 506 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Referenced in? That is waaaay too far. That means if the person blocked you, you essentially can't talk about them.
I can't edit the original response, but I meant you shouldn't be able to make replies to threads of their retweeted posts.
I always thought this was a stupid restriction. You can't view the post while authenticated but you can view the post while unauthenticated.
To be fair, you can barely view any post while unauthenticated these days. Sometimes I click on a link to a tweet on my work laptop (where I'm not authenticated) and I get immediately assaulted by several pop-ups and cookie bars and redirected to the landing page when try to dismiss them.
I always thought this was a stupid restriction. You can't view the post while authenticated but you can view the post while unauthenticated.
The old blocking also stopped your posts from appearing in their "for you" timeline. The new blocking doesn't.
This is just one more example of Twitter going out of their way to work against the best interests of their users. As twitter continues to treat its userbase like a controlling/abusive spouse I hope more and more people realize that they deserve better and leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blocking doesn't really fix the brigading problem, regardless of whether people need to log out or not. Most X users will just post a screenshot of the tweet, breaking accessibility in the process and disassociating the original author from the thread against their will. This isn't always a good thing, as it leads to people being surprised by crowds of strangers suddenly screaming at them and not being able to see th…
> Most X users will just post a screenshot of the tweet, breaking accessibility in the process and disassociating the original author from the thread against their will. But that means the blocking worked. Another person will now have to go to the extra effort of either finding that tweet or going directly to the profile to interact with them. And those extra steps were exactly the feature the blocking provided. It c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It provides friction for further misbehaving. Imagine you blocked someone who has serious issues with people who #foobar. It's better for you if they can't easily find you and repost your content to their community who also hate #foobar. It's not perfect, but the friction helps prevent drive-by bad behaviour.
No it doesn't. The people who are malicious about it will be using multiple accounts. The block button doesn't stop them. If anything, it provides them ammunition to go "See, this person is a sensitive one, let's add them to the list". Either your posts are public or they're not. There's a pretty clear distinction between the two, and anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely mistaken. The risk of people re-posting your…
You don't want to interact with me? Fine. Then why should I still see your posts? Yes, some crazy people will go to lengths to see it anyway, but most don't and will take the hint, shrug, and go away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It provides friction for further misbehaving. Imagine you blocked someone who has serious issues with people who #foobar. It's better for you if they can't easily find you and repost your content to their community who also hate #foobar. It's not perfect, but the friction helps prevent drive-by bad behaviour.
No it doesn't. The people who are malicious about it will be using multiple accounts. The block button doesn't stop them. If anything, it provides them ammunition to go "See, this person is a sensitive one, let's add them to the list". Either your posts are public or they're not. There's a pretty clear distinction between the two, and anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely mistaken. The risk of people re-posting your…
> No it doesn't.
There's really no use in continuing this discussion when one party is unable/unwilling to use precise language to discuss marginal effects. Obviously I presume what you mean is that the marginal effect is too small to be relevant, but discussions with people who round that off to "No it doesn't" rarely go anywhere productive.
Hiding your posts from abusers is a legitimate use case because most people (emphasis on most) won't bother to go on private browsing every day just to be annoying.
There's an argument here that the previous blocking behavior might give users a false sense of security. In reality, you should not post any information publicly that you wouldn't want someone in particular to read, even if you've blocked that person.
This is just one more example of Twitter going out of their way to work against the best interests of their users. As twitter continues to treat its userbase like a controlling/abusive spouse I hope more and more people realize that they deserve better and leave.
Nope, Twitter blocking is a poorly designed feature that permanently degrades the user experience.